Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I can understand and agree with your sentiments. Just about every shift in human consciousness, and/or "paradigm shift" in history has gotten nasty and extreme it seems. While unfortunate, and probably unnecessary if cooler heads had prevailed. It is still a truth that had the debates and confrontations never taken place, we might not have the luxury of what we today take for granted to be the truth. Slavery and women's suffrage are but two small examples.

This is a debate that is going to take some time to play out at this point in human social evolution. I think we would all do well to leave the nastiness and extremism aside as much as it is to do with each of us individually, but it is still a form of the dialectic that must run it's course if we are ever going to move on as a species. It's time has come, in my opinion.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

But a simple element of logic is overlooked: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Or, in other words: you cannot prove a negative. A basic, fundamental rule of logic.

"You can't prove a negative" is a negative. Actually, you can prove a negative. Even the law of non-contradiction is a proven negative.

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence in Bayesian probability. No evidence that there is water in a glass is positive evidence towards its absence.

But I agree that science isn't a trump card, especially when one isn't at all practicing science when appealing to such authority.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

Unless your name is "Science", I don't believe I have put any words in your mouth.

But science makes no room for anything that there is no evidence for. Not to say that any other commonly held beliefs are/are not correct, but Atlantis is another good example, as is preAdamic civlization theories. If you would love a good tour of how "lack of evidence" becomes "impossible to be true", visit the Ancient Egypt threads.

You were replying to me, and sorry if I misunderstood your post.

Science works with facts, and even simple example of Atlantis, where we don't really know if Plato's work was fiction or not, but simply, there was no other evidence in existence if Atlantis, be it in other works (presumably from ancient Egypt, as he claimed that story comes from there) or physical evidence of an island described in Timaeus. That is all another topic, but in no way hypothesis is killed by science, but absence of evidence did leave it at that, never made it into theory and never was proven correct.

Also, sorry if word I choose above is too strong, I believe delusional has this meaning, in no way is derogatory...

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

And this is good example how scientist explains his reasoning for name, even what he would call it, but contrary to all evidence, people believe what they want. I have no problem with people believing all they want, but claiming their belief being correct, like example with this post... well that is no any more belief if presented as truth even all evidence provided it tells its wrong?!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


The absence of evidence is evidence of absence in Bayesian probability. No evidence that there is water in a glass is positive evidence towards its absence.

I think the concept you are referring to here is sublime enough that there just isn't a word to differentiate.

Looking in the glass to indeed verify that there is no water in it, while possibly "evidence" by definition, is not really "evidence". It is direct observation That is like saying that my hand being on fire is evidence that the stove is hot. It really isn't evidence.....even if it fits a narrow definition of the word.

How do you know it was God? Do you mean you were in the presence of something greater than yourself? Like BH and several others have stated , "you think you saw God", you don't KNOW. Think Heisenberg.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Looking in the glass to indeed verify that there is no water in it, while possibly "evidence" by definition, is not really "evidence". It is direct observation That is like saying that my hand being on fire is evidence that the stove is hot. It really isn't evidence.....even if it fits a narrow definition of the word.

Although that is not an analogous scenario, I understand what you mean. But yes absence of evidence is itself evidence. Not necessarily evidence of absence, but evidence nonetheless. In probability theory, absence of evidence for one theory makes another theory more probable.

The problem with disproving God is that there is nothing to disprove.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

While you mention ancient history, let me ask you this - how do you work out historical evidence that we, humans invented Gods all along in our ancient history?! Today we call those religions mythology, while it is actually based on the same belief principle as current religions?!

To make matter more complicated, we even have evidence of copy/paste between religions and what we call today mythology?!

Add to this miracles, that will never be proven to happen, inability to even prove Jesus life.

Again, everyone can believe all they like, but let's not forget that today some people are trying to propagate their belief in education, alongside of science. If we like to think about our future, we can't ignore this threat, as we will pay the price if belief ever enters science class. We have example of Islam at what happens when belief prevails science...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That depends on your philosophical school of thought as to whether or not you will discount experience as a means of acquiring knowledge. Are you a rationalist or an empiricist?

I follow more of the empirical school of thought that experience is a valid - and in fact necessary means of acquiring knowledge. As such, I will not discount experiential evidence based on my own lack of experience - whereas you seem to. Granted, I do hold to a bit more old school thought than what is more common in modern day.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Although I understand what you are talking about lets see what happens when we change the word god

''Here is where science crosses into belief all too often: stating there is no Loch Ness Monster On the one hand, the best that can truthfully be said is "We have found no evidence of Loch Ness Monster". ''

Not just that we know for sure 100% there is no Loch Ness Monster, same with Bigfoot, spaghetti monster etc

Just because someone puts a crazy idea in our head, like for example there is an omnipresent, omnipotent, omni.... god
watching over us

It doesn't mean I have to accept the possibility of this fantasy being real just because a can't prove them wrong!

Instead I am 100% sure they are wrong until they can prove me wrong.

But this is were I agree with you;
It's an ''evil'' circle that goes on every time that we can't
disprove some outrageous claims.

Having said that.
Yes I am a gnostic atheist, I am 100% sure there is no god ( at least what the humans call god)
because those people who first gave us the idea of the god that we have today, in some badly written books,
have made so many scientific mistakes and have fill it with so many ignorance...
which was acceptable 2 or 3 thousand years ago but now it is just ridiculous.
... that nobody in their right mind can take them seriously.

So why did human evolve this fantasy of god? (Even many non religious people still accept the possibility of a ''supreme being'')
Mainly because of 3000 years in-direct brainwashing from religious societies the concept of god flourished around the globe and become part of the ethics traditions etc
and because humans are weak (and in those times even more naive and ignorant) with way too many fears and in-comforts to easily buy on it.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Are you a rationalist or an empiricist?

I am both. Neither can be properly utilized without the other.

I follow more of the empirical school of thought that experience is a valid - and in fact necessary means of acquiring knowledge. As such, I will not discount experiential evidence based on my own lack of experience - whereas you seem to.

Could you give me an example what you mean by "I will not discount experiential evidence based on my own lack of experience"?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Given that a healthy percentage of scientists are persons who have religious beliefs as well, and attend religious services once a week, I think it is highly likely that your position has little to recommend it.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SuperFrog

If you think science is so incompatible with God, then you should probably take a look at Newton, Einstein and Pascal.

Seems like none of them had trouble considering the possibility that there exists a greater intelligence than human beings.

“God does not play dice with the universe”. - Albert Einstein

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's Wager

its too bad those guys didnt write down some equation pinpointing his address. i guess gravity is easier to nail down than god is. and thats why priests wear parachutes. odd where they put their faith when it counts.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SuperFrog

Given that a healthy percentage of scientists are persons who have religious beliefs as well, and attend religious services once a week, I think it is highly likely that your position has little to recommend it.

the percentage is lower per volume. meaning that the average scientist is likely to be less spiritual than the average person of your generic non-masters career. and not because of anything they learned in the classroom, but because of the part of their life spent outside the educational system. besides, scientists are humans. they are not immune to the "divinely sublime inspiration sensation".

For those of you who are tired of listening to endless, philosophical arguments for whether religion and science are compatible - a debate that has gone on for centuries and certainly won't get resolved in a conspiracy theory forum - how about examining putative EVIDENCE of their harmonious connection, not highly subjective opinions that decide nothing?
Such evidence of the existence of a profound, mathematical connection between religion and science can be found here:
smphillips.8m.com...
and in the website owner's book "The Mathematical Connection between Religion and Science." Because this connection IS mathematical, it is irrefutable evidence for the existence of transcendental intelligence (yes, God) Whose nature has become partly known in BOTH science and the mystical traditions of religions.

It is not whether the two approaches to truth - religion and science - are compatible that you should be asking. It's whether they can be shown to be connected in some way so that they can be proved to be saying exactly the same thing about the universe. The issue of their PHILOSOPHICAL differences as ways to understand reality is trivial and uninteresting compared with this much more fundamental issue because it involves the very question of the existence of God. The research linked to above exhaustively demonstrates that science (particularly theoretical physics) is uncovering without realising it a profound, mathematical gnosis that is embodied so deeply within the world's religions that its presence has never been recognized until recent breakthrough discoveries. Religious and scientific knowledge have now been shown to have an extraordinary interface of a mathematical nature. If you are mathematically inclined, explore it at the above link.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SuperFrog

Given that a healthy percentage of scientists are persons who have religious beliefs as well, and attend religious services once a week, I think it is highly likely that your position has little to recommend it.

Even scientist like to give their brain a rest every now and then.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Understood, but every time I hear someone blathering on about how science and religious belief are automatically mutually exclusive, I have to stand up and point out that if their argument was to hold any weight what so ever, there would be no scientists with any beliefs what so ever, aside from in the tools of their profession.

Again, since no such total absence of scientists with religious beliefs exists, the point as made by the OP is invalidated.

I personally see no mutual exclusivity there what so ever. I have faith myself, but I LOVE science! By what other methods, than the scientific means given us by centuries, millennia of development of thought, can we better observe the majesty of creation, after all? I know of none.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SuperFrog

If you think science is so incompatible with God, then you should probably take a look at Newton, Einstein and Pascal.

Seems like none of them had trouble considering the possibility that there exists a greater intelligence than human beings.

“God does not play dice with the universe”. - Albert Einstein

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's Wager

Nice thought. Yeah, I think actual observation makes it harder to not believe in an intelligent designer. I feel people whom are insisting on not believing in a creator are really projecting their own bigoted ideology on everyone else when really they want to ignore substantial facts. People just want to do their thing without thinking they have someone higher to answer to. Usually these are the ones who feel insecure about themselves and their imperfections or who want to do immoral or illegal things. The fact of it all is that living matter does not evolve from non living matter period. Scientific fact. So obviously there is something greater than our puny human thinking going on. There is a creator. Another thing too, is people now say,"Creator huh? That's such an archaic way of thinking..." Hmmm maybe there is a reason people back then started passing on such stories especially since they were closer to the actual events that unfolded humanity's course. Maybe the thinking nowadays is more inaccurate and diluted because of pride and the ability for anybody to whip out a speculative philosophy on something. People make up anything nowadays to justify their life choices. But hey, humans are inclined to selfishness so it's not surprising.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TzarChasm

Understood, but every time I hear someone blathering on about how science and religious belief are automatically mutually exclusive, I have to stand up and point out that if their argument was to hold any weight what so ever, there would be no scientists with any beliefs what so ever, aside from in the tools of their profession.

Again, since no such total absence of scientists with religious beliefs exists, the point as made by the OP is invalidated.

I personally see no mutual exclusivity there what so ever. I have faith myself, but I LOVE science! By what other methods, than the scientific means given us by centuries of thought, can we better observe the majesty of creation, after all? I know of none.

Statistics for USA from 1998 is that ONLY 7 % of top scientist have belief in personal God. This is also evidence that higher education really correspond to lower number of religious belief, showed here by Dr. Tyson. Please note again, those numbers are for USA, country that is far more religious then rest of developed world.



As for rest of your post, how would we observe the majesty of creation if there is no signs of creation and if we have proof how universe started and change over time?!

Sorry, but yes, religion and science in basic principles are mutually exclusive, and some scientist believing in personal god does not mean they go well together. You have charlatans such as Deepak Chopra who are misusing science to try to prove their religion... but still does not mix well, witch was showed well on this show...

a reply to: swanne
It was probably best to lie about religion to ensure you didn't end up on the rack or burnt at the stake for heresy

a reply to: TrueBrit

Understood, but every time I hear someone blathering on about how science and religious belief are automatically mutually exclusive, I have to stand up and point out that if their argument was to hold any weight what so ever, there would be no scientists with any beliefs what so ever, aside from in the tools of their profession.

they dont get their religion and their science from the same book. nor do they attend church when they are researching cancer, or visit the lab when they feel the need to pray. two different facets of living here. like pooping and cooking. they may be related but they are not done at the same time or with the same tools.

I personally see no mutual exclusivity there what so ever. I have faith myself, but I LOVE science! By what other methods, than the scientific means given us by centuries, millennia of development of thought, can we better observe the majesty of creation, after all? I know of none.

i may be incorrect, but it is my impression that the crux of the whole debate is that "believers" (trying not to be offensive with that label) put our country at risk of becoming a theocracy and everyone else is trying to slow their roll. has nothing to do with appreciating the universe - most of which doesnt appreciate us.