The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

[RickSp]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes...Science is true only in the day that you live.

If one was to look at this argument then the only conclusion one could reach is that "religion is false for all time."

Truth in science is only that which can be proven using the scientific method. Newtonian gravity was "true" because the predictions of the equations could be tested and verified. Einsteinian gravity is "true" because it was tested and found to be a reliable predictor of events. And yes, over time our understanding grows, expands and evolves.

By scientific standards, religion must be "false" because it cannot be tested or proven. This is fine because there is no reason to apply scientic standards to religion. Likewise it makes zero sense to apply religious standards to science, as you have done in this argument. Science makes poor religion and religion makes dreadful science.

[Starboy]

Quote by: RickSp By scientific standards, religion must be "false" because it cannot be tested or proven. This is fine because there is no reason to apply scientic standards to religion. Likewise it makes zero sense to apply religious standards to science, as you have done in this argument. Science makes poor religion and religion makes dreadful science.

Why can't scientific standards be applied to religion? And what makes you think that they have not been applied to religion? What makes you think that religion is not as natural a phenomenon as horse herds? And what makes you think that completely natural explanations cannot be provided by science? Has it ever occurred to you that a religion such as the worship of Zeus was a real phenomenon but that Zeus itself was just a fantasy? What makes you think that your particular religion is any different? People that think that science and religion can somehow be reconciled do not understand science. The scientific viewpoint is that all explanations can only use natural constructs. There is no such thing as the supernatural. It is all natural, all the time. One man's supernatural religion is another man's myth, but to a scientist one supernatural religion is no different than any other, they are all myth.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

by Rave.... in the next hundred+ years, begin to hit obstacles too large to circumvent -- that's when a newer knowledge paradigm will become mainstream. In the mean time you'll have people who honestly believe science is the best way to find all truth -- but isn't that the way of paradigms? It's facinating really, to see how intellectualism evolves, and always systematically denies the elements of reality that it cannot explain.

Yes, Rave I believe that your 100% correct and that's rare that I admit that. Also we had an astrophysicist speaker at the E*SU star party who said that a NEW PHYSICS would need to be invented to explain the workings "inside" a singularity.

I do believe that 90% maybe even 95% of the metaphysical as well as supernatural will eventually be described by science, oh in the next 1000 years would be an optimistic guess.


mb

[MerlinsByte]

By Rick Sp...If one was to look at this argument then the only conclusion one could reach is that "religion is false for all time."

That should read science has been proven wrong throughout history. Some science ... make that most major science theory cannot be proven as fact..Please get your facts in order before confirming my suspicions.


mb

[RickSp]

Quote by: MerlinsByte That should read science has been proven wrong throughout history. Some science ... make that most major science theory cannot be proven as fact..Please get your facts in order before confirming my suspicions. mb

You sir, have no idea of what science is about, what constitutes the scientiifc method or even the criteria for "proof" or "fact", not that I suspect you particularly care. It is so much easier for the theists to blather about unproven "theory" and demand "fact" while they themselves hide behind faith. A game for fools. I have no wish to play.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Starboy Why can't scientific standards be applied to religion? And what makes you think that they have not been applied to religion? What makes you think that religion is not as natural a phenomenon as horse herds? And what makes you think that completely natural explanations cannot be provided by science? Has it ever occurred to you that a religion such as the worship of Zeus was a real phenomenon but that Zeus itself was just a fantasy? What makes you think that your particular religion is any different? People that think that science and religion can somehow be reconciled do not understand science. The scientific viewpoint is that all explanations can only use natural constructs. There is no such thing as the supernatural. It is all natural, all the time. One man's supernatural religion is another man's myth, but to a scientist one supernatural religion is no different than any other, they are all myth. Starboy

What an interestingly muddled discourse. I find most religion to have much in common with horse herds, or well, what the herds leave behind.

I am a rationalist and an admirer or the Enlightement. I became particularly interested in the study of comparative religion only after I became an atheist. Religion provides a fascinating insight into both culture and psychology (and too often pathology). There is clearly a deep psychological need for religion whether it makes any particular sense or not, which is what so often makes it fascinating.

[Starboy]

Quote by: RickSp What an interestingly muddled discourse. I find most religion to have much in common with horse herds, or well, what the herds leave behind. I am a rationalist and an admirer or the Enlightement. I became particularly interested in the study of comparative religion only after I became an atheist. Religion provides a fascinating insight into both culture and psychology (and too often pathology). There is clearly a deep psychological need for religion whether it makes any particular sense or not, which is what so often makes it fascinating.

Sorry if I mistook you for a magical thinker. Your post gave me the impression that you thought that religion and science could coexist.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

by rick sp...You sir, have no idea of what science is about, what constitutes the scientiifc method or even the criteria for "proof" or "fact", not that I suspect you particularly care. It is so much easier for the theists to blather about unproven "theory" and demand "fact" while they themselves hide behind faith. A game for fools. I have no wish to play.

Merlin writes...Thanks for your opinion Rick sp. However you must know a game before you can play with others. it and you seem to be so closed minded as to only play with yourself...so to speak.

mb

[Starboy]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes...Thanks for your opinion Rick sp. However you must know a game before you can play with others. it and you seem to be so closed minded as to only play with yourself...so to speak. mb

Merlin if there was a list of those whose mind engaged in self love that posted on this board, you would be at the very top of the list and the next in line would appear tepid in comparison to you.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Starboy Sorry if I mistook you for a magical thinker. Your post gave me the impression that you thought that religion and science could coexist. Starboy

Religion and science do coexist, or haven't you noticed? I am an atheist but most scientists are theists. They find a way to keep matters of science and faith seperate. I don't share their faith, but I do not doubt that it is real.

[Starboy]

Quote by: RickSp Religion and science do coexist, or haven't you noticed? I am an atheist but most scientists are theists. They find a way to keep matters of science and faith seperate. I don't share their faith, but I do not doubt that it is real.

Ooops, you are right. I should have said coexist peacefully. And where do you get your facts about scientists. Most scientists self identify as either atheist or agnostic. Small percentages are full bore god believers. This is because science is intrinsically atheistic. It is hard to be a good scientist and a magical thinker at the same time. If you tried to explain something in science using souls, demons and devils you would be laughed right out of your career. Science is all natural all the time. No supernatural even considered let alone allowed. If anything that god advocates would consider to be supernatural was ever discovered by science it would automatically be natural. In science supernatural is just mumbo jumbo. That is because it is not as if there was one kind of advocate of supernatural in the world and thus one kind of supernatural. Whose supernatural takes precidence? In science it is none of them. Supernatural explanations from any group of any kind is just superstitious nonsense.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Historically, most great scientists have been theists. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler and any scientist working prior to the nineteenth century may not have had a real choice in the matter. Then again, Einstein and Max Plank were both theists. Plank was a deacon in his church until he died while Einstein denounced atheism while not quite accepting the idea of a personal god.

I agree that with time the number of scientists who are believers has dropped. (I suspect the fundamentalist luddites have helped this process along.) It also depends how you ask the question. I have read one study where close to half of the scientists surveyed said thay they believed in God as a concept. When they asked if they believed in "personal God" involved in their lives the figure dropped to single digits.

[Starboy]

Quote by: RickSp Historically, most great scientists have been theists. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler and any scientist working prior to the nineteenth century may not have had a real choice in the matter. Then again, Einstein and Max Plank were both theists. Plank was a deacon in his church until he died while Einstein denounced atheism while not quite accepting the idea of a personal god. I agree that with time the number of scientists who are believers has dropped. (I suspect the fundamentalist luddites have helped this process along.) It also depends how you ask the question. I have read one study where close to half of the scientists surveyed said thay they believed in God as a concept. When they asked if they believed in "personal God" involved in their lives the figure dropped to single digits.

As of the beginning of last century the number of theist scientists had dropped to a minority. Also your comment about historical scientists is not a fair assessment. Most of those scientists existed in cultures that did not tolerate sacrilege very well. Who knows their actual thoughts? And who knows what their beliefs would have been if they had been allowed freedom of thought. As for Einstein "denouncing" atheism please try to be honest. He did no such thing. If you can't hold your beliefs honestly then why pretend to be rational about them? The fact is there are vastly more scientists alive today then have ever existed in the history of mankind. Comparison to scientists in history is not in any stretch of the imagination accurate. It is yet again more dishonesty. And get real. A concept is just an idea. If the concept is presented and someone is asked, ‘Does the concept exist?’ then there is only one answer, yes the concept exists, the fact that you brought it up means that the concept exists. It is however very dishonest to interpret this as being an indication that a person thinks that the constructs implied in the concept are real. It is not enough to look at the poll figures; one must look at the questions as well. I would be very surprised if most scientists considered supernatural constructs of any kind to be reasonable explanative constructs. In science it is all natural all the time. It is not as if there is any way to prefer one set of supernatural constructs over another. Those constructing such constructs do this deliberately. A scientist that published a paper explaining a phenomenon with a spirit would be laughed out the field. In fact the far side cartoon showing just such a thing is considered to be a joke in scientific circles.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Starboy As for Einstein "denouncing" atheism please try to be honest. He did no such thing. If you can't hold your beliefs honestly then why pretend to be rational about them? Starboy

It is best not to be insulting while uninformed. Perhaps I should have said deny instead of denounce, but to suggest that the basis for my beliefs is dishonest is both insulting and stupid, particularly when you don't have your facts straight .

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Starboy]

Quote by: RickSp It is best not to be insulting while uninformed. Perhaps I should have said deny instead of denounce, but to suggest that the basis for my beliefs is dishonest is both insulting and stupid, particularly when you don't have your facts straight .

Maybe I don't have my facts strait but that doesn't mean that you do either. And I could be the scum of the earth but this still doesn't mean that you are not the shit below me. The quote from Einstein is hardly a denunciation of atheism. In fact if you were an honest person you would actually try to find out more about what Einstein said regarding religion and god and the circumstances under which he said it so that you might have a better understanding of it. Otherwise an honest person would not claim to know what Einstein thought on the subject.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." — Albert Einstein, in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1981. "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. ... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. — Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine (9 November 1930); also used in the obituary in New York Times (19 April 1955)

At best you could call Einstein a deist. This does not place him in the category of someone who "denounces" atheists. In fact compared to most theists it just about makes him an atheist.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Starboy And I could be the scum of the earth but this still doesn't mean that you are not the shit below me. Starboy

Ok, Starboy. Enough. I see no reason to waste my time with this sort of nonsense. I shall trouble you no further. I'll waste my time elsewhere.

[fedfem]

Quote by: RickSp It is best not to be insulting while uninformed. Perhaps I should have said deny instead of denounce, but to suggest that the basis for my beliefs is dishonest is both insulting and stupid, particularly when you don't have your facts straight .

Einstein's quote regarding Spinoza is a bit out of context. Here is the full quote:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

[RickSp]

Quote by: fedfem Einstein's quote regarding Spinoza is a bit out of context. Here is the full quote: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. -- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

I agree. That is more complete. Einstein repeatedly used the language of religion and god while never accepting the idea of "personal god" which I noted I guess three posts or so ago.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Starboy Maybe I don't have my facts strait but that doesn't mean that you do either. And I could be the scum of the earth but this still doesn't mean that you are not the shit below me. The quote from Einstein is hardly a denunciation of atheism. In fact if you were an honest person you would actually try to find out more about what Einstein said regarding religion and god and the circumstances under which he said it so that you might have a better understanding of it. Otherwise an honest person would not claim to know what Einstein thought on the subject. At best you could call Einstein a deist. This does not place him in the category of someone who "denounces" atheists. In fact compared to most theists it just about makes him an atheist. Starboy

Einstein was an atheist.

He defended his atheism:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[RickSp]

Arguing over points of fact based on quotations is probably a waste of time. You want to call Einstein an athiest that is fine with me, and probably him to, at this point. You can also call him a red breasted warbler with the same result.

Einstein wrote: 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.'

Because Einstein did not believe in a "personal God" you say he was an atheist. That probably says more about your belief structure than his. He did not call himself such but perhaps you know best.

I'm willing to take his word for it. I am an athiest who finds the study of religion to be revealing. I may not agree with with Einstein's perspective but I can understand it. I feel no need to shape his views to fit mine.