The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[Cobalt-70]

So, because the results won't convince an evangelical Baptist it is, therefore, bad science.

No, because it won't convince an evangelical Baptist, it is bad religion.

[mfbukowski]

Rev Klaas Hendrikse said "God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience”

This shows he doesn't believe what I'm criticizing. I don't get how you can't see that, honestly.

Thats because he isnt thinking of epistemology. The only difference is I would say "The only way we can know anything about God is through human experience."

If that's the only way we can know something there is no reason to postulate that there "is" any "Thing" beyond experience. So in a sense, he was right on. Just like a "red thing" is not a red thing at all- it is the experience of a red thing.

So yes, a red thing is nothing more than a red thing experience, and God is also a human experience- there is nothing more we can talk about.

This is the central point we always discuss- your postulation of something beyond experience- things out there objectively existing beyond what we can experience. There aint none. Everything IS experience.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

All you are really saying is that unless the LDS abandon God, and believe as you do they are inconsistant. What utter rubbish.

NO ONE can be totally consistant. We ALL have thoughts, ideas, beliefs that taken in the literal meaning do not agree with other of our own thoughts, ideas, beliefs. I've tried to give you examples from science of such. We know from science that atoms are largely empty space, but no one gets out of bed worrying about falling through the atoms that comprise the floor. We know from science that atoms blink in and out of existance at random, but no one worries that they personally will suddenly blink out of existance.

I believe in God. I do so because of my own personal experiences. Those experiences help me to be a better person. They give me great joy and comfort. AS long as I do no evil to others. Who gives a flying fig what I believe?

Edited August 6, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

Great! did you see that, mfbukowski?

I sure did

He's right on the money- you just understand neither of us because you wont listen.

God is in principle objectively observable- he just hasnt been yet.

[Jeff K.]

I meant there's no uncertainty and all the QM craziness with 'normal'-sized objects. That's why I used cars and printers. I hope that clarifies further.

And yet you are still wrong. Quantum physics is real and that uncertainty is what makes our cars go today, our printers, and computers and anything else with a transistor. You need to study your science. There was a great lecture on the science channel called "defining reality". It is basic, but perhaps you could benefit from it. If you wanted to.

[subgenius]

What can I say? I'm a man of hope.

more like a man of splitting hairs - a would-be "word criminal"

.... religion (Mormonism specifically) makes claims about things that exist that are not parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable

so what? do you have a point with this statement other than the rather obvious one of science aint religion and religion aint science?

....Mormonism accepts things as correct without much justification, science can't do that.

Mormonism can't do that either.

While you try to quiblle over what "justification" means you fail to realize that you are having a science discussion about religion, which makes no sense. Your claim here is "unjustified".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justification

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justify

Example: God exists.

This claim is never empirically justified (few times even attempted) and still accepted while science just can't do that.

This quote says it all. What a fallacy of logic and basic understanding. Exactly what distinction are you making about "empirical justification" other than stating the obvious? And if you are implying that religion does not rely on information gained by means of observation or experiments then not only do you not understand what empirical means but also have struggles with religion or science. Clearly, your statement here claims that Mormons rely on information gained without observation or experiment...exactly how does that work?

Really, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religion offers very little in this respect.

sez you. i challenge you to prove this requirement..."empirically justify" that ill-conceived statement, please.

Why say "God exists" when all we have are feelings and not trustworthy evidence? Why say "God did this" when that isn't the best explanation for things?

this question alone should have killed this thread. it is disingenuous, absurd, and completely "unjustified". Prove that Mormons offer no "trustworthy" evidence? Prove that "God did this" is not the "best" explanation.

All you have for an argument here is opinionated babble that offers no depth, simply posted to "incite". I believe the internet term is called "troll".

[Robert F. Smith]

elguanteloko, on 05 August 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

The reason we don't have what physicists call "the theory of everything" is because QM doesn't translate into "reality" if by reality you mean baseballs, cars, printers. Saying "reality is merely an illusion" is an exaggeration and saying "electrons" are an illusion is also.

You don't need to take this personal but I find it rather disturbing that theists are so quick to want to make "reality" into something much more flexible than reason would allow us to go. I don't need to tell you why I think they do so.

The reasons computers can operate is based on quantum physics.... to say it doesn't translate into reality is to completely ignore science. Or so a scientist would tell you. I suggest you study up on how transistors work and what part quantum physics plays in it. You are apparently unaware of the how the theories interact and what the "TOE" is all about.

Go ahead, keep telling us how much you know about science. It is entertaining.

Since Elguanteloko is apparently positing three or more levels of "reality" -- Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Quantum mechanics -- each of which "saves the appearances" in its own realm, yet clearly "conflict" with one another for a description of ultimate reality, how is he able to complain of the lack in "religion" (a very generic and loaded term) of likelihood and falsifiability? Therefore justifying his atheism?

Edited August 6, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Jeff K.]

What else can he do? If you don't like something you complain. It doesn't have to be rational or consistent. A hallmark of his part in these discussions.

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote from Elguanteloko:

Read through the thread and you will find that most people here believe in God's physical existence and influence on the physical but by all means, design a test to test what you think God's existence of influence can be supported with credible evidence! I'm all for that! Since those proposing the "God explanation" don't do this, then it is left out of science NOT as outside of its purview in principle but outside of its current reach. That is why science won't accept the God explanation as of today.

name='shalamabobbi']And with this paragraph I am in agreement. I do not subscribe to including God within the realm of science. Since as I understand the issue, it is not possible to use the methods of science to determine anything about Him. Briefly, because He is in charge as to what He chooses to reveal to us about Himself rather than us. So we cannot make any tests to ferret out any information about Him unless He agrees to reveal that information of His own accord. He has a physical body by LDS beliefs, but not a mortal body. I do believe that this distinction is important even though you seem to ignore it.

Quote from Elguanteloko:

Then there's no rational justification for accepting the God explanation.

name='shalamabobbi']If by rational you intend scientific, I am in agreement.

Quote from Elguanteloko:

If you can't even test in principle God's existence or participation, why accept God as an explanation at all other than you just feel like it?

name='shalamabobbi']Well here again we are back to the issue of personal testimony.

The argument held up by some that there is no scientific proof that these kinds of behaviors, or disobedience to commandments is harmful, is simply to me a demonstration of the limitations of the scientific method to those areas of life which are most important to me.

Quote from Elguanteloko:

(Again, I never said parsimony 'determines truth', that's silly!) This is where the conflict is: since science can't even test or reach IN PRINCIPLE that God, then there is no reason to accept such an explanation. We aren't speaking of some sort of mystical proposition here but of physical existence with influence on the physical. THAT is the conflict. Scientific-oriented thinking leads one to say, "Since there is no evidence nor is God necessary to explain something, then there is no good reason to accept his physical existence and his influence on the physical" while religion says "Anyways we will accept the God explanation". The latter is directly antithetical to science.

name='shalamabobbi']Again, no disagreement that it is without the bounds of science, but it is within the bounds of personal testimony and experience even though those may fail to meet the scientific standard for us all. I conclude there is no conflict in accepting that to which I am personally privy as well as accepting science and what it is capable of revealing.

Quote from Elguanteloko:

If someone was to conclude that because something was 'subjective' that it was therefore false, that would be very bad reasoning. I'm not saying this. Please, bobbi, read what I'm trying to say carefully. I'm NOT saying that because science can't test it that it is, therefore, false.... at all.

name='shalamabobbi']Great, then you agree with me.

Quote from Elguanteloko:

All I'm saying is that there isn't any good reason to accept propositions like "God has a body of flesh and bones" if we accept scientific REASONING, not (religious?)tests. You can't accept science and accept such propositions AS TRUE without being inconsistent.

name='shalamabobbi']Not if you have done the test and verified it to be true for yourself. It is not possible to verify it broadly such that it is accepted by the scientific community at large for the reasons given before. We are not in charge of the test and its results, God is. He is revealed according to His will not ours. Such a situation is not amenable to the scientific method.

There is no contradiction between personal experience and science. Science is simply that which we all can experience personally and hence agree upon. If some experience is allowed to some but not to all then it is outside of science by definition, but it is all still personal experience.

You may too quickly have given away the store, Shalamabobbi.

Elguanteloko is speaking from within very narrow strictures about religion, and is even trying to confine himself to LDS religion (completely ignoring Eastern traditions, for example, and the arguments brought forward by physicist Fritjof Capra). Which is why he so frequently repeats the demand to demonstrate via science the existence of a god with a body of flesh & bone. The demand is a straw man, but is an excellent ploy for a defense attorney who is arguing that, in the absence of a corpse, there is no proof that a murder has been committed.

However, in the real world, the body of a crime (corpus delicti) can be established without a corpse. The existence of scientific, forensic evidence of blood (perhaps of both victim & perpetrator), fingerprints, an effort to cleanup the scene with bleach, etc., together with lack of an alibi, and in the presence of motive, opportunity, and means (MOMS) can indeed lead to a conviction for murder.

SInce God does not ordinarily make his body available for scientific examination, and since Jesus' body disappeared from the tomb, we will have to similarly look elsewhere for evidence: SInce we do in fact have artifacts of religious claims such as the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc., we can in fact subject them to scientific tests (this does not necessarily obviate the value of purely religious tests for personal testimony). We can examine them systematically to determine whether they make claims falsifiable by science, and therefore unlikely to be true.

Since Elguanteloko places his focus on LDS claims, he might want to ask whether he has erroneously given short-shrift to this scientific approach, and I would put the same question to you, Shalamabobbi.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . both science and religion are merely languages. For example, if people try to do science by reading the Bible or the Book of Mormon, that's really bad. Bad science and bad religion. Likewise, if people were to try to do scientific experiments to determine which religious ritual brings them closest to nirvana/salvation/clear, that equally bad as both science and religion. You'd never get such crap research published in a respectable journal. Maybe an Evangelical might offer such research over the pulpit, but only because for the last few decades, the Evangelical community has been developing an elaborate pseudoscience which combines the language of science and religion into something that is neither quite science nor quite religion, but certainly has quite a lot of political power. Mormons have been doing that too, to some extent, led by FARMS.

I have no objection to the idea that both science and religion are merely languages, but are you sure about the rest?

In fact respected journals have published the results of scientific tests conducted on Zen and other types of Bhuddist masters and Hindu yogis to determine what sorts of physiological factors come into play, and I know of no one who has declared it to be "crap research" -- except now you.

The same applies to the very kind words about FARMS by both the late President Gordon B. Hinckley and by the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell (for whom the Maxwell Institute is named), or have you jettisoned the notion that we should use the brains God gave us to acquire knowledge by intellectual means as well as by faith (D&C 88:118)?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . disingenuous, absurd, and completely "unjustified". Prove that Mormons offer no "trustworthy" evidence? Prove that "God did this" is not the "best" explanation.

All you have for an argument here is opinionated babble that offers no depth, simply posted to "incite". I believe the internet term is called "troll".

Yeh!

[Robert F. Smith]

FROM URRONER IN ANOTHER THREAD:

:diablo: :diablo: :diablo:

Edited August 6, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[shalamabobbi]

Since Elguanteloko places his focus on LDS claims, he might want to ask whether he has erroneously given short-shrift to this scientific approach, and I would put the same question to you, Shalamabobbi.

Well I certainly don't ignore that, but for the purposes of this thread I am simply trying to get to the bottom foundational argument of El loco. I think it amounts to nothing more than mockery adorned with some fancy words from the vocabulary of science.

[shalamabobbi]

I explained where the conflict is. Why take those experiences as having originated by a super-powerful human our Father in Heaven?

With enough constraints, and I'm using that word in the same manner as it is commonly used in math and science, it becomes the only reasonable conclusion..

[elguanteloko]

Boring and useless objections, you guys. I'll be checking here once in a while until I see one worth responding to. I need to finish some books so I can't give you guys much time now.

See you around!

[mfbukowski]

And with a wave of the hand and no reply, poof.

[Jeff K.]

Elguanteloco watches too much Harry Potter. It doesn't work that way elguante, you need to "articulate" your position with clarity as to why. It seems you have once again reverted to the waving of a magic wand.

Ironic isn't it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting how whenever the going gets tough, the gloved-one quickly exits stage left.

[elguanteloko]

I've written enough about it, people, and what you are bringing up has no relevance. Sorry.

[shalamabobbi]

useless objections, you guys.

Well certainly, for someone who subscribes to the philosophy that only that which can be established via the scientific method has any significance.

If nothing else elguanoloco is self consistent.

I need to finish some books so I can't give you guys much time now.

Maybe you'll find some real ammo to shoot at us with.

I'll stock up on Ginko Biloba and Lion's Mane to try and keep up..

[shalamabobbi]

I've written enough about it, people, and what you are bringing up has no relevance. Sorry.

Words you may hear repeated to you in the day of judgement..

Well at least MP gritted his teeth and repeated himself several dozen times..

And to think when I converted to the church that I used to beat myself up that I wasn't born under the covenant..

I'm so glad I was born in circumstances that brought an appreciation for what I was given instead of having everything handed to me on a silver platter so that I could turn up my nose at it and prefer paper plates..

[Jeff K.]

LOL, well said.

[elguanteloko]

Well certainly, for someone who subscribes to the philosophy that only that which can be established via the scientific method has any significance.

I don't subscribe to that idea. Try again.

[mfbukowski]

I don't subscribe to that idea. Try again.

Standard answer.

What was that about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

[elguanteloko]

Standard answer.

What was that about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Practice?

btw, you know I don't think science is the only way to study things. Why would you defend such an accusation against what I'm saying?