Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[_random_]

Plenty of people think you'd explode or freeze immediately though.

 

[warpus]

Actually, that's the very definition of Truthiness

Truthiness doesn't imply truth, though.

That's an actual word? Dammit

Alright, let's go with:

The number of people believing something has no impact on how true or false it is

 

[fishjie]

You do realize that Christians haven't been sticking fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalala" since the time of Emperor Frederick II, right? The objections you raise have existed for a long time, and Christian philosophers have been creating arguments for why an omnibenvolent God could or does exist all the while.

Of course they have been trying, because they know deep down the whole idea is ludicrous. They come up with ideas such as free will to justify suffering. Of course, free will is not supported in the bible. And free will is mutually exclusive with omnipotence and omniscience. Of course, omnipotence and omniscience are illogical and we can discuss why if you want. Either way, Epicurus summed up the "problem of evil" beautifully.

So we can declare things false just because some people believe them for stupid reasons?

There is no logical/rational reason to believe in a personal god found in today's major religions, so there are only "stupid" reasons (your words not mine). I can understand being a deist or an agnostic who believes in a god who created the universe and then washed his hands of the matter, but belief in an all loving god who answers prayers and cares about humans is ridiculous.

As an apostate I totally sympathize with believers. children whose parents are muslims are often muslim. Same with children whose parents are christian turn out to be christian. I suspect any theists on this forum had parents who shared their same religion. They are atheists with respect to every other religion except the one they believe, because they were programmed to believe.

 

[fishjie]

That's not the case. It's the kind of thinking we engage in all the time. For instance if I bought a new car I might choose not to get it checked over on the grounds that I have "faith" in the manufacturer. I might have no reason to suppose that this manufacturer is better than the others; heck, it might even be worse. But I think its better. Provided I don't go too far with the idea it isn't irrational in of itself; what would be irrational would be to check all the goods before one purchases them. (More on this below).

You are basing this on empirical evidence. The manufacturer has made a physical product before, you have seen their work, and you have recourse if something goes wrong. If its bad, then you will not be so quick to have "faith" in the future. I may have "faith" in a friend to do something, but if he fails, I can confront him, because he actually exists, and most importantly change my behavior as a result (I'm not going to trust him as much in the future)

What about faith in god? There is no physical evidence whatsoever, just a bunch of outdated, misogynistic, racist religious texts. You can "contact" god but you have no idea if you're just having a conversation with yourself. People who have faith don't change their behavior, they continue to believe blindly despite mountains of evidence otherwise.

Except Luther and most people at the time thought one could indeed know God through reason. The Catholic Church still thinks one can for the record; as do most mainstream Protestants denominations. The belief was so pervasive that people as a general didn't think to check out the claim; much as people didn't think to check whether it was a good product (idea) to begin with. Kind of like how people didn't think to check if the Chevie Corvair was prone to going ass up at all speeds because that's not what Chevie's or cars usually do. It would have been irrational, on balance, to have checked a car out to see if it did that before one bought it. Much the same as it would have been strange to question whether or not God could be known through reason. That's the context that the quote needs to be placed in. (I'd accept that it would be more irrational to have reviewed the literature before using the quote; but now that I've pointed it out I think it fair to say that continuing to use it like a blunt hammer would be a failure of critical thinking).

That's good that you brought up the idea of "checking" something. The other difference between "faith" in a manufacturer and "faith" in god is that you indeed can have your car checked. You can't "check" god. There is zero physical evidence. The only indication that your belief is real is the emotional high you get in a worship service. It should be obvious why subjective and emotional experiences like this are not valid evidence. Funny story, Dan Barker, author of "Losing faith in faith" and "Godless" talks about how he still preached for a period after becoming an atheist in order to feed his family. Well, people talked about how they could sense the spirit of god in his sermons. LOL. talk about epic fail.

Oh and to boot every world religion indicates they report the same experiences, and every religion states that every other religion is wrong.

As for the idea of hell, the problem with the bible is you can find verses for and against everything, from slavery to misogyny. So I agree, you could totally argue against the idea of "hell" (and you should, because its barbaric). But you can't say that the idea of hell isn't supported by the NT (OT no, because jews didn't believe in hell from what I can tell). I mean cmon:

Parable of Lazarus and the rich guy. Rich guy dies and...

In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame."

Jesus also mentions many parables where unfaithful people are thrown out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Or chaff being thrown into unquenchable fire. And in revelation:

"as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Also, the whole idea of salvation is pointless if there is no hell. Why did jesus die? If we're not going to burn in hell afterward, why would ANYBODY want to go to heaven? I'd rather not spend time with a genocidal maniac who rewards people like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich with life everlasting and not people like Einstein and Gandhi. That's disgusting. Give me death instead.

 

[_random_]

Of course they have been trying, because they know deep down the whole idea is ludicrous. They come up with ideas such as free will to justify suffering. Of course, free will is not supported in the bible. And free will is mutually exclusive with omnipotence and omniscience. Of course, omnipotence and omniscience are illogical and we can discuss why if you want. Either way, Epicurus summed up the "problem of evil" beautifully.

Claiming that I know "deep down" that my beliefs are ludicrous is every bit as insulting as when Christians claim that all atheists really know God exists but deny it so they can keep on eating babies or whatever. And you can't really claim Epicurius as the last word in atheism anymore than I can claim Aristotle as the last word in theism. Sure, the Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Evil have important places in modern debates about theism, but they've been refined well beyond their initial formulation on some Greek hill.

 

[El_Machinae]

They've been refined, but they haven't really gone anywhere. None of the solutions have been accepted philosophically, and the vast majority of somewhat reasonable solutions are contradicted within the specific theistic tradition (i.e., the solutions aren't compatible with the faith).

I really do think the problem of evil is insurmountable.

 

[warpus]

The problem is that God is given the characteristic of being all powerful.

Is this even supported in the Bible or Koran?

 

[Andvare]

The problem is that God is given the characteristic of being all powerful.

Is this even supported in the Bible or Koran?

Some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Scriptural_grounds

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
And Abram replied, how can I lord when thou art Omnipresent?
Thus the LORD smote Abram, since no one likes a smartarse

 

[warpus]

Couldn't God have been exaggerating?

 

[El_Machinae]

Ehn, Revelation was dictated by an angel, and an amazing proportion of them are known to be notorious liars. In fact, Paul had previously explicitly warned about deceiving angels that lie about God.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Moderator Action: <Snip>

We're pretty strict on language, even when it's in a linked image. If you want, you can repost the image with the objectionable words censored.

 

[kochman]

I personally find it brilliant when we use cartoons to illustrate, in 100 words or less, our profound thinking on what could be the most important issue in our personal eternities or lack thereof.

Right on!

 

[AlpsStranger]

I personally find it brilliant when we use cartoons to illustrate, in 100 words or less, our profound thinking on what could be the most important issue in our personal eternities or lack thereof.

Right on!

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but I do think the cartoon is a decent summary.

 

[Leoreth]

I personally find it brilliant when we use cartoons to illustrate, in 100 words or less, our profound thinking on what could be the most important issue in our personal eternities or lack thereof.

Right on!

If you can't attack the content, attack its form.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Gallileo didn't need 100 words to nail this thread.

 

[Polycrates]

The problem is that God is given the characteristic of being all powerful.

Is this even supported in the Bible or Koran?

On the other hand:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. - Judges 1:19

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem is that God is given the characteristic of being all powerful.

Is this even supported in the Bible or Koran?

No, not really. That was my point, most of any near solutions to the problem of evil, etc. can be foiled by Scripture. Like the god of the book doesn't fit the putative god being described by the philosopher.

The solutions aren't satisfied intellectually, but are directly foiled by scripture. i.e., God cannot be the way the Bible describes in order for the solution to be viable.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't understand your example. What stupid reason do people have for believing that you'll die if you step out of a space shuttle? I'm pretty sure most people realize exactly why that is a bad idea. Nobody thinks that space crocodiles are going to eat you.

Yeah, but they believe either it's so cold you'd instantly freeze to death, or you'd "explode" from depressurization. These are both incredibly stupid.

The reason why that doesn't matter is the basic idea behind it "don't go into space" is a sound one, without actually understanding what happens.

People do hundreds of things like this every day. Hell, I'm only able to access the Internet because I trust in my very stupid reasons why I think a computer works.

I'll definitely agree that the number of people believing something is true has no relation to it's truth value, in general, whenever large numbers of people believe something for stupid reasons, it frequently points to that thing being true, but the reasons for believing it to be irrelevant.

 

[Masada]

You are basing this on empirical evidence. The manufacturer has made a physical product before, you have seen their work, and you have recourse if something goes wrong.

None of that constitutes empirical evidence though. I can't assume a product is good because I can see it, nor can I assume that what I've seen of the product is representative of what the product does, and the mere fact that I have recourse if something goes wrong is a comfort that I can bail out should something go wrong, but shouldn't, and indeed isn't, indicative that the product is good. Hell, I have to have faith that the manufacturer will honor the claim if the product does break.

If its bad, then you will not be so quick to have "faith" in the future. I may have "faith" in a friend to do something, but if he fails, I can confront him, because he actually exists, and most importantly change my behavior as a result (I'm not going to trust him as much in the future)

That's fine so far as it goes. But let us assume that my car breaks down, is that as a result of manufacturing issues generally or just the product of contingent events that I might have initiated? In the former case we might be able to say in an objective sense (depending on the basis for that claim) that the product was flawed, in the latter our experiences might be the wrong one to draw upon; the product might indeed be sound but cooking eggs on the boilerplate wrong insofar as car care and maintenance goes.

But I need to stress two further things, which you haven't picked up, namely that faith is omnipresent in human relations. I have enough good faith in other people that they won't strike me dead on the street to walk it. One could claim that this is an empirical matter but I disagree, on the grounds that most people lack the evidence to make that kind of claim. The mere fact that someone has never been struck down in front of one is not evidence that such things do not happen but merely that it has never happened before one. Some awareness of the murder rate would probably be sufficient though it doesn't resolve the salient question of whether or not someone might strike you down, it would, I think, confirm that possibility (assuming that there murder rate is greater than 0). The logical outcome of a low rate is that the likelihood of being killed is low but it requires some measure of faith in our own position viz. the murdered to walk the street which is ultimately a subjective judgement however well informed.

The second, is that this example was meant to be illustrative. I wasn't suggesting that it was impossible to know how 'good' a car is (it is actually since 'good' is a subjective construct) but that most people just don't or can't do it. I think it therefore fair to say that most people have faith in a car marque. There's often nothing empirical about their beliefs and I know of a few people who have crossed the line into irrational love of their car marques ("Brand X is better.. Yeah I had to have the engine rebuilt"). Thus, to a large extent, the world is a place chock full of faith that isn't religious. Married to all this should be an understanding that people at that time didn't consider proof of God through empirical means but through inductive reasoning. Therefore, applying empirical standards to the historical question of God as posed by Martin Luther is unfair. However, if someone were to make the claim now, we could of course call them out on it using empirical bases citing a lack of evidence.

What about faith in god? There is no physical evidence whatsoever, just a bunch of outdated, misogynistic, racist religious texts. You can "contact" god but you have no idea if you're just having a conversation with yourself. People who have faith don't change their behavior, they continue to believe blindly despite mountains of evidence otherwise.

Most Christians don't take the Bible to be evidence in of itself in the existence of God (or shouldn't because that's what most mainstream Protestants Churches and the Catholic Church believe). But the use of superlatives, and the insulting idea that religious people are mentally ill is both insulting and contributes nothing to the discussion. Then again, people who chat to their cars and have an irrational faith in their cars imputed abilities fall are not markedly different. As do those who believe that housing is a better investment than shares in the long run, despite the wealth of empirical evidence to the contrary. But w/e we're all rational creatures and stuff.

As for the idea of hell, the problem with the bible is you can find verses for and against everything, from slavery to misogyny. So I agree, you could totally argue against the idea of "hell" (and you should, because its barbaric). But you can't say that the idea of hell isn't supported by the NT (OT no, because jews didn't believe in hell from what I can tell). I mean cmon:

Parable of Lazarus and the rich guy. Rich guy dies and...
Quote:
In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame."

You can because Jews of the time didn't believe in Hell and Jesus, was among other things, a Jew. That subsequent generations of Christians have given Hell a place at the table isn't evidence that the NT supports it; so much as these latter Christians saw support for it the NT. The difference is important. Put another way, it would be strange for Jesus to have believed in a much later addition to Christian canon before there was a Christian canon or even Christians.

Jesus also mentions many parables where unfaithful people are thrown out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Or chaff being thrown into unquenchable fire. And in revelation:

"as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

That's still rather different from being cast into Hell till the End of Days with punishments meted out according to ones sin with demons taking the place of jailers. Besides, I would take Revelation with a dose of salt. It wasn't intended to record what the End of Times would like (per the Left Behind series) but was a commentary on the events of the time.

Also, the whole idea of salvation is pointless if there is no hell. Why did jesus die? If we're not going to burn in hell afterward, why would ANYBODY want to go to heaven? I'd rather not spend time with a genocidal maniac who rewards people like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich with life everlasting and not people like Einstein and Gandhi. That's disgusting. Give me death instead.

You need to stop drinking the fundie kool-aid. What American fundies have to say isn't representative of Christians.

The problem is that God is given the characteristic of being all powerful.

You'd be hard pressed to find that claim in the Bible as framed. At least as we understand the issue, it's a subsequent development and was the result of the interaction between Greek philosophical traditions and Christian thought. Much as the Trinitas makes no sense unless one has an understanding of why it was felt to be needed to have God make sense in a Greek framework of thought. It wouldn't go so far as to suggest that there's no evidence for either; but that it represents more a reading into the text than might otherwise be supposed.