Why would an omnipotent being ever get angry?

[Timsup2nothin]

Maybe those who don't understand what science is. Those who have at least a basic level of understanding of the methodology do not equate it to anything resembling religion.. not really.

What percentage of the population do you think gives one thought a week or more to "the methodology of science"? One thought a year?

It isn't even a question of having a basic understanding. I have an in depth understanding of internal combustion engines and I drive just about every day...without giving a passing thought to the processes of an internal combustion engine, pretty much ever. My disinterest is exactly equal to everyone else's, despite a much different knowledge level.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why would an omnipotent being ever be non-angry?

(i suppose that a god will be very unlikely to feel emotions or have consciousness as defined by humans ).

 

[warpus]

What percentage of the population do you think gives one thought a week or more to "the methodology of science"? One thought a year?

It isn't even a question of having a basic understanding. I have an in depth understanding of internal combustion engines and I drive just about every day...without giving a passing thought to the processes of an internal combustion engine, pretty much ever. My disinterest is exactly equal to everyone else's, despite a much different knowledge level.

The point is that most people do not look to science to explain to them the mysteries of the universe. From the point of view of your average citizen, science is just something that allows us to build cars, planes, and toasters. It's practical stuff - not something that can tell you if life after death exists - maybe one day, but definitely not now. Religion on the other hand is something that has all those mysterious answers for you - right now.

Either way, why are we comparing science to religion again?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The point is that most people do not look to science to explain to them the mysteries of the universe. From the point of view of your average citizen, science is just something that allows us to build cars, planes, and toasters. It's practical stuff - not something that can tell you if life after death exists - maybe one day, but definitely not now. Religion on the other hand is something that has all those mysterious answers for you - right now.

Either way, why are we comparing science to religion again?

Because I do it all the time. I find it fascinating. A lot of people I know through my sister, who are employed in the world of science, find it as amusing as I do. They seem to recognize the parallels very readily. The only time I seem to get in trouble for it is with hard core atheists, who seem compelled to deny that there is a religion shaped hole to be filled at all, and hard core religionists, who are offended at the suggestion that anything less than their specific god could fill it.

And let's face facts, something that can stir up the extremists on both sides at the same time is almost always fun.

By the way, the average person couldn't care less if their toaster was "allowed by science" or a "gift from the gods" as long as it does the job.

 

[warpus]

I still don't buy the "science fills the holes" hypothesis. Because.. well, it just doesn't. Science is full of holes. We've barely scratched the surface of what there is to understand.

I don't deny that there are some parallels, but then again there are also parallels between atheism and frog jumping competitions.

 

[FredLC]

Because I do it all the time. I find it fascinating. A lot of people I know through my sister, who are employed in the world of science, find it as amusing as I do. They seem to recognize the parallels very readily. The only time I seem to get in trouble for it is with hard core atheists, who seem compelled to deny that there is a religion shaped hole to be filled at all, and hard core religionists, who are offended at the suggestion that anything less than their specific god could fill it.

I utterly disagree with the "religion shaped hole" thing. The reason of the supposed parallels is because both attempt the same; explaining the universe and our role in it. Religion came first because it is less sofisticated an approach; so it got important when we didn't know better, and now it refuses to let go.

There is a knowledge hole to be filled, not a religion one. And there are good and bad ways to go about it. Cience is comprehensible, even if it is extremely hard. Religion is nonsensical and should not get a pass just because it's lack of depth makes it more easily consumable.

And let's face facts, something that can stir up the extremists on both sides at the same time is almost always fun.

Ok in principle, but truth be told, I never seen an "extreme atheist", or anything equivalent to an extremist religionist. Who is the most extreme atheist you can think of? And the most extreme religionist?

Now compare their deeds.

This whole argument rests in a "false equivalency" fallacy.

By the way, the average person couldn't care less if their toaster was "allowed by science" or a "gift from the gods" as long as it does the job.

Yeah; but this is cognitive dissonance. Should the world be as they want, soon there would be no toasters anymore. It is a tragedy that they fail to acknowledge that.

Regards .

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I utterly disagree with the "religion shaped hole" thing. The reason of the supposed parallels is because both attempt the same; explaining the universe and our role in it. Religion came first because it is less sofisticated an approach; so it got important when we didn't know better, and now it refuses to let go.

There is a knowledge hole to be filled, not a religion one. And there are good and bad ways to go about it. Cience is comprehensible, even if it is extremely hard. Religion is nonsensical and should not get a pass just because it's lack of depth makes it more easily consumable.

Since "good and bad" is purely a value judgement it sounds like a little religion has crept into your discourse there. Yes "both attempt the same thing, explaining the universe and our role in it." That's the religion science shaped hole. One being "more sophisticated" or "deeper" or "more extremely hard to comprehend" than the other is a subjective judgement, just like one being "better" is.

Ok in principle, but truth be told, I never seen an "extreme atheist", or anything equivalent to an extremist religionist. Who is the most extreme atheist you can think of? And the most extreme religionist?

Now compare their deeds.

This whole argument rests in a "false equivalency" fallacy.

If you've never seen an extremist on either side you need to get out more. I don't hold them equivalent, by the way. The extreme religionist tries to control behavior, which makes them dangerous. The extreme atheist just calls everyone who disagrees with them stupid, which is arrogant and annoying, but not particularly dangerous. They are comparable in their misguided motivations though.

The extreme religionist demands that even if you do not share their beliefs you must follow their religion's guide to behavior, as if somehow your 'sins' will prevent them reaching their heaven. For example the Christians in the US are up in arms about gay people, which seems to indicate that they are afraid that the existence of butt sex will be held against them by their god...despite the fact that their god allegedly won't even hold their own sins against them. This is really just a reflection of the unfulfilled human need for agreement, which the extremist expands into a demand that can only be met by universal agreement.

On the other extreme, we have the atheists who demand that we all respect science and insist that if only we were as smart as them we certainly would. Which I find hilarious because I usually have at least as much education in science as, if not more than, they do. They have the exact same unfulfilled need for universal agreement that the religionists have. In their case it gives them such weird ideas as that we will only have toasters if the entire world studies electrical engineering.

Yeah; but this is cognitive dissonance. Should the world be as they want, soon there would be no toasters anymore. It is a tragedy that they fail to acknowledge that.

Is it a tragedy, really? How many scientists does it take to make toasters?

Regards .

To you as well .

 

[Narz]

Since "good and bad" is purely a value judgement it sounds like a little religion has crept into your discourse there. Yes "both attempt the same thing, explaining the universe and our role in it." That's the religion science shaped hole. One being "more sophisticated" or "deeper" or "more extremely hard to comprehend" than the other is a subjective judgement, just like one being "better" is.

Come on, seriously Tim?

Science isn't deeper? More sophisticated? It has to be, otherwise not only would every laugh @ it & not acknowledge it as science but it wouldn't work.

I agree completely with Fred LC here.

That said, there are attributes of religion do have value. Measurible scientific value.

Prayer has not been shown to make any difference in the world but it certainly may pyschologically soothe the person doing the prayer. The power of congregations coming together is likewise soothing. Dance, singing, all undeniably positive for individuals & communities. Meditation has been studied extensively recently & it's pretty much as good as physical exercise (which is pretty amazing because there's just about nothing as good overall as regular exercise).

So you can have your scienece & keep your soul. The problem with religion is it refuses to shed the rhetoric & authourity/superiority, also the seperation it enforces on believers vs non-believers is a big turn-off to anyone who values truth & understanding over fitting in with a much of people who don't care about truth.

Religion that refuses to evolve will ultimately be discarded, assuming the standard of living for humanity continues to increase (in an even remotely apocolypic future religion will make a strong comeback.

I have a friend who's an atheist who nonetheless goes to a Unitarian church for social reasons. The Unitarians are a great religion from the little I know about them. It seems they just focus on the good parts of religion (Christianity mostly but they pay lip service to Buddha, Allah, all those guys) & pretend the hateful, divisive, destructive parts don't exist. Its not as good as being able to meetup simply for the common-good without the middle-man of God but baby steps.

 

[Narz]

On the other extreme, we have the atheists who demand that we all respect science and insist that if only we were as smart as them we certainly would. Which I find hilarious because I usually have at least as much education in science as, if not more than, they do. They have the exact same unfulfilled need for universal agreement that the religionists have. In their case it gives them such weird ideas as that we will only have toasters if the entire world studies electrical engineering.

I agree there is a strong human need for universal agreement. Hence why people can't sleep when someone on the Internet is wrong.

I don't think FredLC was saying they'd be no toasters unless "the entire world studies electrical engineering", just saying there would be no toasters if the entire world studied at seminary school.

A good counselor may be as valueble as a good engineer. I prefer they speak from their own experience rather than from a holy book but religion is medicinal for some. I support religion for medicinal purposes but it should done in the privacy of small groups & no one else should have to smell it if they don't want to.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree there is a strong human need for universal agreement. Hence why people can't sleep when someone on the Internet is wrong.

I don't think FredLC was saying they'd be no toasters unless "the entire world studies electrical engineering", just saying there would be no toasters if the entire world studied at seminary school.

A good counselor may be as valueble as a good engineer. I prefer they speak from their own experience rather than from a holy book but religion is medicinal for some. I support religion for medicinal purposes but it should done in the privacy of small groups & no one else should have to smell it if they don't want to.

I support science for practical purposes, but it should be done in workplaces where it is useful and no one should have to smell it if they don't want to.

 

[Narz]

Don't worry, the Science section is only on Tuesdays & even then its often smaller than the Sports Section.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In the immortal words of Alfred E Neuman...What? Me worry?

 

[classical_hero]

Thank goodness the Bible isn't a Science book, since it would have to re-written every so often. The only thing about science is what we know changes and scientific fact one decade is scientific nonsense the nxt.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmmmn, well not 'nonsense'. But you're right, since we're fallible we have to update our thinking as we learn new things.

He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday.

 

[Narz]

Thank goodness the Bible isn't a Science book, since it would have to re-written every so often. The only thing about science is what we know changes and scientific fact one decade is scientific nonsense the nxt.

Thats life for you, you have to adapt. Survival of the fittest would better be written as survival of the most adaptable.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not that I fully agree with either of you (I don't think), but just because it's not possible to prove the lack of existence of something vague like the idea of God, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to trace the evolution of religions and the Gods that people worship - a lot of that stuff has historical context that explains how people molded the Gods they worship on Gods from other cultures and religions.

Maybe I'm wrong, because I'm not a historical or theological scholar, but if you were.. you'd probably conclude that the majority of the Gods people worship are fabrications - due to the fact that they are in part based on Gods from other religions. The Christian God is a bit more complicated, I think (?), but I think I do remember Plotinus explaining in some post or other how some of the history of what the Hebrews worshipped and how they ended up going from polytheism to monotheism, and that they borrowed a lot of ideas about their religion from surrounding ones. It's possible it wasn't Plotinus - maybe I'm thinking of something else, but there seems to be enough historical circumstance to make one realize that "A lot of people believe in Gods, so they must exist" is a bit of a bunk of an argument, since a lot of those Gods are in fact based on Gods and ideas from other cultures.

Now, I don't think that it's obvious that God is a fabrication in general, because I'm open to the idea of one existing. It's possible, I have to admit. But I also have to admit that it seems very logical to conclude that most of the Gods people worship are in fact cultural creations - pandering to cultural circumstance and/or historical accident.

In my cultural geography class, what you're describing was basically included in "cultural diffusion." People migrate, either voluntarily or involuntarily (whether driven away from their homeland by war, disease, famine, etc.) and while they may not be able to take much of their physical stuff with them, they always bring their ideas and beliefs.

It doesn't really matter what science promises, it is still what people expect, so they are satisfied. To most people 'science' is just as much a big nebulous thing in the sky as god was. They go to work. They take care of their little corner of the world. They count on the big man in the sky to take care of the rest. They just don't want people like Akka to call them stupid so they call the big man in the sky science instead of god, but the purpose doesn't change with the name.

I assure you that when I looked at the rain clouds outside my window yesterday, I wasn't thinking of some 'big man in the sky'. I was thinking of the water cycle (yes, really).

Either way, why are we comparing science to religion again?

Because certain people persist in believing that science is a religion, and refuse to consider that they are incorrect.

I don't deny that there are some parallels, but then again there are also parallels between atheism and frog jumping competitions.

Since "good and bad" is purely a value judgement it sounds like a little religion has crept into your discourse there.

So the words "good" and "bad" are only usable in a religious sense?

That's basically saying that if I declare that spinach is good (a value judgment), I have made a religious statement.

The extreme atheist just calls everyone who disagrees with them stupid, which is arrogant and annoying, but not particularly dangerous.

If that's your definition of "extreme" I'd hate to see how you would define the atheists who are in favor of destroying churches and other places of worship and burning/destroying religious texts. Those are the ones I would call both extreme and dangerous.

On the other extreme, we have the atheists who demand that we all respect science and insist that if only we were as smart as them we certainly would. Which I find hilarious because I usually have at least as much education in science as, if not more than, they do. They have the exact same unfulfilled need for universal agreement that the religionists have. In their case it gives them such weird ideas as that we will only have toasters if the entire world studies electrical engineering.

For some reason I am reminded of "Creationist Mom Megan Fox" who insists that scientists claim that only scientists are allowed to "do" science. She also thinks that recycling is a religion and that environmentalists are preaching religious doctrine when they post signs asking people to put their empty pop cans into the recycling bin or take them to the depot.

I support science for practical purposes, but it should be done in workplaces where it is useful and no one should have to smell it if they don't want to.

Cooking is chemistry. Chemistry is a science. Have you decided to stop eating?

Thank goodness the Bible isn't a Science book, since it would have to re-written every so often. The only thing about science is what we know changes and scientific fact one decade is scientific nonsense the nxt.

That's because incorrect information is replaced by correct information (or at least as correct as possible). I'm pretty sure that if I go check any of the bibles I own that were published within the last 40 years or so, that they still have the part in them that says women should be stoned for adultery, among other reprehensible forms of execution that no civilized place allows anymore.

Thats life for you, you have to adapt. Survival of the fittest would better be written as survival of the most adaptable.

Bingo. It's the lifeforms that best adapt to their environment that survive.

 

[bhavv]

I still don't buy the "science fills the holes" hypothesis. Because.. well, it just doesn't. Science is full of holes. We've barely scratched the surface of what there is to understand.

I don't deny that there are some parallels, but then again there are also parallels between atheism and frog jumping competitions.

Actually I think we've already gone well past the surface with what there is to understand. Colonising mars by the 2020s surely cant only be the surface of discovery.

And I don't buy the hypothesis that just because some remaining niggle of understanding cant yet be explained, that means therefore God did it.

 

[FredLC]

Since "good and bad" is purely a value judgement it sounds like a little religion has crept into your discourse there.

Huh?!? The act of judging is religious? And having values is religious too? How so?

Others said that before me, but I wanted to point out that religion does not have exclusivity on asserting values and assessing things or behaviors accordingly.

Yes "both attempt the same thing, explaining the universe and our role in it." That's the religion science shaped hole. One being "more sophisticated" or "deeper" or "more extremely hard to comprehend" than the other is a subjective judgement, just like one being "better" is.

Even if "judging values" were some form of religious mentality creeping in - the denial of this premise already cripples your argument here - I don't see how exercising this, and coming to the conclusion that science does a better job, is something challenged by your argument. You never confronted the conclusion of this judgment of value, just identified - wrongly, imho - that it is a subjective (and somehow religious) act, and stopped there.

If you've never seen an extremist on either side you need to get out more.

Well, my wife always tell me that I do need to travel more.

Nevertheless, the widest disparities in behavior are much more easily found online these days.

The extreme atheist just calls everyone who disagrees with them stupid, which is arrogant and annoying, but not particularly dangerous. They are comparable in their misguided motivations though.

(...)

On the other extreme, we have the atheists who demand that we all respect science and insist that if only we were as smart as them we certainly would.

Really? You had the chance to accuse "extreme" atheists of anything, and the worst you could come up with is "they say things that annoy me"?

And at the same time, you toned down religious extremists quite a lot. I agree that their attempts to control behavior is rather evil, and perhaps it is meta in the sense that their concrete actions are, in the end, attempts at controlling behavior; nevertheless, between beheadings, buildings fallen, children indoctrination and meddling with politics and legislation, you painted a very tamed version of the religious extremist.

I feel that you made my argument of "false equivalency" even stronger.

They have the exact same unfulfilled need for universal agreement that the religionists have.

New argument here. Ok, I'll bite.

I suppose that, as we are all humans, we all have many of the same frailties. And I suppose that those of us who are more vocal, thus annoy you, could be the ones falling for this urge. But before pinning this on atheism, you'd have to look at how they behave on other debates, to see if atheism is a special case, or if they act this way in general.

And before you say that different personalities abound in all camps, do remember that proselytizing is reputed a virtuous behaviors, and encouraged, by many, if not all, religions. There is, again, no atheist equivalent.

If those proselytizing don't usually refer to non converts as stupid, they have their own cool terms; immoral, hellbound, arrogant, blind, infidel, all come to mind. Imagine how annoyed you'd be.

I'd also like to point out that, in debates, trying to convince the other part is kinda inevitable. So if you are basing this on debates you had, chances are your perception is quite colored.

In their case it gives them such weird ideas as that we will only have toasters if the entire world studies electrical engineering.

(...)

I support science for practical purposes, but it should be done in workplaces where it is useful and no one should have to smell it if they don't want to.

There is some truth in your argument here, but it is distorted.

There is a yearning that scientific knowledge gets embraced. Because the division between the abstraction of science and the utilities we get from it is false. I mean, we have GPS today because Einstein daydreamed about how would it look like to ride a beam of light.

The attitude of contemplation is vital to the scientific effort, and it would be enhanced and improved if the world as a whole took part. I weep thinking of how much brainpower was wasted in silly things such as "the mystery of the trinity" or "how many angels could fit in a pinhead", that are hard just because they are incomprehensible nonsense.

Your very quote here, that you support science only when relegated to the "workplaces where it is useful", is a clear signal of what is wrong. First, because it is inconsistent to expect the utilities without the abstraction, second, because it is incoherent to use one and reject the other; but most important, because we would get better and faster science if everybody was doing it.

Is it a tragedy, really? How many scientists does it take to make toasters?

To create a toaster we could use, we needed to:

Invent math;
Invent writing;
Invent the wheel - and later, cogs;
Invent levers;
Invent metallurgy - and later plastic;
Invent engineering;
Uncover the electromagnetic force;
Invent power lines

We also needed to invent bread and butter, elaborate economy and create systems of distribution of goods, like roads. I'll spare the many steps to all those things; you get the point. It took MANY scientists, some of them among the most brilliant minds the world have ever seen, so we can have these little boxes in our homes, helping to fill our bellies.

That we consider toasters mundane, instead an amazing thing that would blow the mind of 99% of the humans who ever lived, is a testament to the transformative power of science and of understanding, and shows how empowering it is to get results for ourselves, instead of trusting providence.

My issue, in the end, is that I truly would like to see the whatever that will make toasters obsolete. I look to labs, not to churches, to that end.

Regards .

 

[Tahuti]

Because certain people persist in believing that science is a religion, and refuse to consider that they are incorrect.

You might want to consider that you are incorrect by believing science and religion are completely separated.

Institutionally, sciences and religion are closely linked. Many universities in the West have religious objectives in their statutes and in fact, the very first modern universities were founded to further the objectives of Islam or Catholicism. Monastaries often were places of scientific discovery.

I might be wrong to think sciences and religion are closely linked, though it should be noted that I am not interested in defending religion from the claims by science.

 

[Leoreth]

Thank goodness the Bible isn't a Science book, since it would have to re-written every so often.

It's funny because I can't think of a book with more different and often contradictory versions of it around than the bible.