quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

We are told by many posters that the scientific method of analysis is superior to the religious method therefore the idea of the existence of a Deity cannot be true.
Surely there's a logical fallacy there somewhere ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

We are told by many posters that the scientific method of analysis is superior to the religious method therefore the idea of the existence of a Deity cannot be true.
Surely there's a logical fallacy there somewhere ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
...we know damn all about him other than fictions written by people who could not have known him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

We are told by many posters that the scientific method of analysis is superior to the religious method therefore the idea of the existence of a Deity cannot be true.
Surely there's a logical fallacy there somewhere ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Hmm The fact that we are communicating on here and can fly around the world amongst many, many other things, rather than having to communicate through uh-hum pray, is a good reason to consider scientific reasoning is superior to religious reasoning.   In another thread you were certain that Modern Living, based on scientific thinking, is going to heat the planet and destroy mankind, perhaps its not so superiour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

We are told by many posters that the scientific method of analysis is superior to the religious method therefore the idea of the existence of a Deity cannot be true.
Surely there's a logical fallacy there somewhere ?

The main fallacy at work in this thread, is that which says we ought to live only according to science, and thus hold ourselves to be nothing more than chemical reactions or even further down the Razor, bizarre collections of particles, ignoring that it is that which permits and even inspires us to understand our chemical or particle nature, which we thereby must abandon.

The secondary fallacy at work in this thread, is that we can only have this discussion in terms of a single interpretation, and a false one at that in my estimation, of the most basic form of one religion, which whilst being perhaps the cultural definition of what religion is and therefore the default setting in debate, not only lacks the ability in itself to define a worldview outside its time and place, also lacks by comparison to science, any qualified proponent in this thread.

What is clear, and always becomes clear eventually in debates such as this, is that religion, whilst useful and interesting as an ancient form of sociological and psychological science, can tell us little or nothing about purer sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics. And equally, that the purer sciences are of little or no use in understanding what it means to be human.

Given that the scientifically minded will always refer to the Razor in order to beat out religion, and the religious will always refer to psychological and sociological justifications to damn pure science, these debates rarely go anywhere. But in the end, they are describing different things - both of which are useful, dependent on circumstances.

I happen to be very sure that there is more to life, the universe and everything, than particle/wave/string theory holds to be the case. This doesnt mean that I must or even do reject those theories or the science behind them. Its not an either/or, its not a true/false.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

i'm trying to figure out how there could have possibly been (and still are) brilliant scientists who also hold to religious beliefs?  Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

And equally, that the purer sciences are of little or no use in understanding what it means to be human.

I happen to be very sure that there is more to life, the universe and everything, than particle/wave/string theory holds to be the case. This doesnt mean that I must or even do reject those theories or the science behind them. Its not an either/or, its not a true/false.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

We are told by many posters that the scientific method of analysis is superior to the religious method therefore the idea of the existence of a Deity cannot be true.
Surely there's a logical fallacy there somewhere ?

Sounds like a strange mixture of denial of the antecedent and the fallacy of anecdotal evidence to me, but not sure. I think I've also spotted converse accident, non causa pro causa, dicto simpliciter, reification, argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ad populum, ane bifurication fly by on the thread as well. Mostly by those with theistic leanings, but certainly not all of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

No one is saying anyone should live according to science whatever living according to science means. What those questioning the existence of god are saying, is that we should think and make decisions rationally and not based on some fairy tale. Like God telling Bush that invading Iraq was the thing to do.(Whether it is true or not who knows).

Living according to science, says that we ought not to think or act in any way which cannot be rationalised. However, we are people and we are not always rational, for we are also emotional beings. If science wishes to dismiss God (and I use that term loosely) and religion for being irrational, then science must first demonstrate that our emotions and imaginations are equally fallacious. Since science seems to hold that God arises as a fallacy from our emotions and imaginations, then it would be much more simple to dismiss God by way of honest scientific endeavour directed at these two areas, than to attempt an impossible validation or invalidation of proof of God's existence. Pure science tells me that my emotions and imagination are merely chemical reactions, and so solves this question partially - indeed, emotion and imagination can be rationally explained in this way; how is it though, that easily explicable, quantifiable, pure scientific, chemical reactions which lack God, can then lead to an impression that God exists? Were these chemicals and reactions replicated in a test tube, would the contents of the test tube also be spontaneously possessed of emotion, imagination and thence an impression of the divine? I suggest not, which if true would tend to suggest something special and not understandable by pure scientific means, occurring in the human system; not the "God hiding" sort of situation, for that would be a fallacy in itself, but a situation which demonstrates that science cannot and will never tell us everything that there is to know, and that science cannot and will never be able to assess everything according to its methodology. The scientific method is wonderful; it brings forth demonstrable truths and is indispensable - but it is not the right tool for every job.

If a false discussion is asking religion to prove what it claims to be true, then it is.

This is a misunderstanding based on reliance on scientific methodology. Religion as we are discussing here, is a function of faith, which in turn relies on emotion and imagination. Religion does not have to prove it is true according to any scientific method, any more than science must adhere to the principles of scripture for its veracity.

Religious people want society to be run according to their beliefs yet they cannot put forward any evidence that their beliefs have any factual foundation. We have had sevral threads where people have shown how much they abhor Islam and say what a terrible and violent religion it is but the same people refuse to look in the mirror at their own religion.

I totally understand your frustration, and agree that much of what is termed religion is absolutely inadequate in our times. This is a problem with the religions in question in that they are fossilised relics of bygone times, whose followers even, do not understand that, for instance, a belief in creation is as irrelevant to faith in Jesus as indeed the scientific explanation is. Until we get rid of the Judaic faiths, (paradoxically perhaps, excluding Judaism itself), as the primary religious models of our society, we will be stuck with ancient and inadequate models throughout our culture. It is a tragedy, that we and everything around us has evolved over millennia, and yet our religious paradigm has not. Perhaps, more optimistically, the scientific angle might yet prove the driving force whereby that changes too. But, all in all, humans need religion and so there will have to be something other than science which replaces what we have now.

Not even religion can tell us what it is to be human but science doesn't try to tell us what it is to be human, science is about knowledge, some of that knowledge might help us understand the human condition but that is not its aim. Religion tells us even less about the human condition because according to religious people, religion is A, B and C and its not to be questioned. That sort of thinking takes us nowhere.

I fear you have run into the second fallacy I identified with this entire thread; that religion is defined far too narrowly in our culture. It appalls me whenever I visit a bookshop, that under Religion are books about Christianity, and even more, western Christianity of the catholic, nicean variety. Everything else, even different sorts of Christianity, is under Myths and Legends. Religion is about the totality of how we live - it not blind obedience to diktat and belief in some ancient story, it is not attending church on Sunday, it is about who we are and what we do and how we do it. I agree, that religiosity is unprofitable bunkum and sadly I also agree that religion too often produces religiosity in our culture.

Religion says it is describing something different because religious people know their beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny.

See above; they dont have to stand up to scrutiny. One could form a valid, viable religion based on the belief that fairies live at the bottom of the garden and purple people eaters lived last century. Such a religion would function just as well as any other, so long as it provided an internally coherent structure to provide a view on life, the universe and everything.

Science can quite confident it is treading on the same ground as religion in the sense that one of its concerns is how the universe came into being. There are very few people left who believed god made the unicverse in 7 days, that the earth is no longer the centre of the universe etc. Religion has been in retreat from substantial questions for so long that now it claims to be beyond science, reason and rational scrutiny.

Youre right. This is where religion has failed - because it has not evolved, because in our culture it is fossilised into a worldview from centuries ago that cannot be changed, according to the religious. And yet, why is it important in any way whatever to salvation through Christ, that God made the world in seven days et al? It isnt important, quite simply. What you identify is the inadequacy of religion as we understand it according to inadequate models, by comparison to a world which has long since moved out of the worldview and culture in which that religion and model was formed. When and if religion catches up in evolutionary terms, it will incorporate that which science has shown us, for this is the concern of religion with cosmology - not the particle wave theories and so on, but how does what is now known relate to the human experience and what does it say about our presence in the cosmos? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

With regard to rationaliy and science, Quantum Mechanics  has reached such levels of absurdity, leastways those bits I have read and can understand, examples...
(a) whether the cat in the box exists until it has been observed
(b) there is a finite possiblity that absolutely anything is possible
Both no doubt based on rigorous mathematical analysis.