For a Godless Science - Tree of Souls

ZenitYerkes · #1 11-10-2010, 07:00 PM

TL;DR - Religious people will kill me

When I've spoken to some of you who have a strong faith in God, I have felt dumb when I talked since the competitor in my theories was no less than an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, Creator of the world. Specially when discussing the Darwinian theory of evolution, the answer "God made it, it's hard to believe that animals can change at all" is too tempting to ignore it and go for another, more complex and difficult to understand answer; since there is actually few completely certain data.

Also, morals are a touchy issue that somehow always pops up when talking to you. I've seen comments to the Evolution theory (just to keep going with the example) saying "I'm sorry, but I'd rather believe the Church. They take care of widows and orphans", or "Evolution theory says the needed should die. It's horrible, I'm not going to believe in that."

I'm not saying anyone here does it (actually this is the last place where I am expecting that kind of replies), but it's not just once that I've heard something similar.

Any case, I beg you people to keep God away from non-religious discussions for it harms more than helps.

Quote:

God made it.

For the people who turn up with the "God made it" answer, I ask them to keep that for when there is actually no more reasoning to do and anything left is blurry, unknowledgeable and speculation land. Then yes, please -God came up and made it.

A theory should be coherent with the data available and with the natural laws and mechanisms that work now and have ruled the world -it always follows logical cause-consequence schemes.

But if you take out the natural cause of it and replace it with God -who, for being omnipotent, could have perfectly made it-, theories drastically change -and not exactly for the better.

Let's take the hypothesis "The world started to be since 5 minutes ago". Logical reasoning will tell you for personal experience: that happening is quite unprobable since it'd need all the people to have false memories until 5 minutes ago; and no possible cause making that happen turns it impossible. However, considering God there could make it actually happen, since we can't know why he did it -but he does, and that's enough.

There are people of all kinds and though quite very much improbable, I bet someone would support that hypothesis by saying that God made it happen.

"That example is stupid, and we are more intelligent than that Zenit". I know it's not the best example, but I'm just pointing out the absurd of replacing something that still can be explained naturally, logically with the God cause.

Tho, the more distant we get in time, the less track we have of the past and less proofs we have to support our theories. Evolution or Big Bang theories support themselves on sheer logic and a few facts, like the Doppler effect or fossils. Creationism supports itself on the Bible and the existence of God -since it needs no further base or alteration of the present proofs, it fits perfectly.

Which is right? I go for scientific theories since they do follow logical schemes and can explain more things without getting into unknown land; they explain why anything in the Universe happens.

Religious theories on the other hand are not as accurate, and most of them replace the natural cause with the God cause, to fill those gaps where science can only bring yet-to-be-proved speculations and almost proofless hypothesis.

However, I can't make these people change their minds with a long post. But I ask them to at least consider the other theories in spite of them being right or wrong, what I leave to their own judgment.

Quote:

That's plainly wrong, I won't believe that.

Feeling anything is right or wrong doesn't change it. Disasters cause thousands of deaths, are we going to ignore them for it? No, what's more -exactly because they are tragic we will get prepared to face them.

For example, evolution theory has the great pro of explaining natural processes of selection -and those processes exist independently of anyone's opinion (or isn't the small fish eaten by the big fish?). Any case, religion appears in the scene and some people say "No, that's not what the Bible says"...

Whether you take the Bible as your reference, or follow what the Pope asks the Catholic Church to do: you should look for stronger reasons to follow their advice, specially when contradictory messages appear.

If all the foundations you have for "Condoms are plainly wrong" is that your pastor said so -that's ad baculum, authority fallacy; and I could retort that the archbishop told me it's better to prevent AIDS.

Both are based on strong authorities -but what makes one better than another it's not who said it, but rather what making that does, which the results are. To put it another way, it's better to let the argument "defend itself" for what it is and what it makes; rather than making it look right or wrong depending on who said it, or how they said it, or...

I'm afraid this just made no sense.

Any case, I'm writing this with all the respect religion deserves; and I hope nobody gets offended for it. If it does, I'm sorry -it wasn't my intention.

**Woodsprite** · #2 11-10-2010, 09:39 PM

I'll stay out of this one...

...especially considering how I'm not Catholic.

ZenitYerkes · #3 11-10-2010, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I'll stay out of this one...

...especially considering how I'm not Catholic.

So what does Catholicism have to do with this?

Just curious.

**Woodsprite** · #4 11-10-2010, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

So what does Catholicism have to do with this?

Nothing, really. Just that small mention of following the Pope might be further exemplified, and I'm not too thrilled with getting into a discussion about "science vs. religion" when certain religious aspects are brought up that I don't agree with in the first place.

(For the record, I don't think science and religion are at odds with each other at all; only religion vs. macro-evolution, and that's just in certain cases.)

Eltu · #5 11-10-2010, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

For the record, I don't think science and religion are at odds with each other at all

If only more people could realize this.

**stdout** · #6 11-11-2010, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eltu

If only more people could realize this.

But they *are* at odds with one another. Religion provides answers (and I'd say usually spurious ones). Science is the objective search for answers.

Banefull · #7 11-11-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stdout

But they *are* at odds with one another. Religion provides answers (and I'd say usually spurious ones). Science is the objective search for answers.

I don't see them as incompatible.

I also see some very grave misconceptions about science.

At a fundamental level, science does not attempt prove things. It merely attempts to explain or model what happens. Only logic can truly establish a relationship. Have you not heard the phrase "Incogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am).

Within any field there are basic assumptions we have to make. To prove things (using logic), we have to start with something that we accept without proof. In the field of mathematics, there are theorems and there are postulates. Every theorem can be proved with other theorems or postulates. These theorems build on one another like a pyramid; however, at the very base are postulates, things we accept as being true without proof. For example, no matter how proficient you are in mathematics, there is no way to possibly prove that a straight line segment can be drawn by joining any two points. That is something simply accepted without proof.

The basic "postulate" of science is that the universe is governed by fundamental and explicit laws. We do not have any proof whatsoever that this is true. We merely accept this statement without proof to be true. We can never truly know if the universe actually is governed by explicit laws. Science may be successful in modeling events but it may still be possible that the universe is not governed by fundamental laws. It would be circular reasoning to try and prove that the universe is governed by set laws by using a scientific law as proof.

Likewise the basic "postuate" with religion is that there is a God (in most cases). The two fundamental assumption are not incompatible. I have faith that the universe is governed by set laws. I also have faith that there is a God.

Everyone who says "I need proof that God exists" baffles me. How can you say that there has to be proof of God in order to believe in him when you in turn believe in science without proof (at a basic fundamental level). It is rather illogical to state a reason then follow the exact opposite in another similar instance.

Perhaps the only fundamental thing that we truly know is that we exist. Incogito ergo sum.

The three basic postulates in my world view are that there is a God (religion) and that the universe is governed by fundamental laws (science), and that I exist. They do not overlap.

**stdout** · #8 11-11-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banefull

Everyone who says "I need proof that God exists" baffles me. How can you say that there has to be proof of God in order to believe in him when you in turn believe in science without proof (at a basic fundamental level). It is rather illogical to state a reason then follow the exact opposite in another similar instance.

Okay, let me explain why I take for granted scientific axioms but not that which states that God exists.

Scientific axioms are self-evident.
That God exists is not self evident.

And please don't tell me that the prettiness of some forest, or the harmonious nature of ecosystems, or any of that, are evidence of a divine creator.

On a separate note, I'd be interested to hear what you define God to be, as I can certainly appreciate the First Cause argument way, way more than I can appreciate the 'all-loving yet seemingly utterly uncaring bearded man in the sky' version.

Banefull · #9 11-11-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stdout

Scientific axioms are self-evident.

How can you know this?

Banefull · #10 11-11-2010, 02:59 AM

I believe in evolution. I also believe in God.

I want you to answer these questions with yes or no (anyone else is free to also).

Does life have meaning?
Does nature have meaning?
Does the universe have meaning?