Is science 'anti-God'? Really?

[Jorge]

In Apologetics there is a thread about the correlation between education level and religious belief. I'm sure we've all seen the studies (and probably fought over what they mean.)

I became interested about how education in the sciences in particular effected belief. Here is a copy of my post there:




So I have some questions I'd like to explore:

Some people say science, with its methodological naturalism, is aligned against God. You can see posts like that in apologetics. Obviously evolution in particular comes in for greatest criticism. It should be noted that there are many Christians, and as a subset, many Christians with scientific education, who see no conflict between their faith and biological evolution. Is science really opposed to Christianity? Are Christians who happen to be scientists 'letting down the side'? There is at least one regular poster here who believes there is an explicit conspiracy on the part of science to destroy Christianity. Do they have a case? What evidence would persuade them otherwise? Should Christians be involved in formal science education? Would a conservative theistic society abandon or curtail science education?

************************************************************************************

The way modern science is defined is absolutely "anti-God". That's
a no-brainer. But then, there are lots and lots of people out there with
'no brains'. Oh, hi Tiggy et al... we were just talking about you.

Jorge

[Wally]

************************************************************************************

The way modern science is defined is absolutely "anti-God". That's
a no-brainer. But then, there are lots and lots of people out there with
'no brains'. Oh, hi Tiggy et al... we were just talking about you.

Jorge

The way YOU define science is anti-religion.

Science is simply an effort to describe objective reality. If any given religion conflicts with that, it's not because science is anti-religion, it's because that religion is anti-reality.

[Raphael]

That sounds like a rather ignorant point to make. Most, if not all areas of science fluid in at least some degree. To say that something is not to be questioned or discussed goes against the idea that science thrives on discussion.

I was talking about a certain subset of people who hold to Scientism as their Philosophical world view.
I agree that "say that something is not to be questioned or discussed goes against the idea that science thrives on discussion" that was kinda my point. And I've seen those who hold to the Scientism Philosophical position that Science is the only Source of Truth™©®(pat. pending) argue that we should be not questioning some things because the science of it has been declared as settled.

[pancreasman]

I was talking about a certain subset of people who hold to Scientism as their Philosophical world view.
I agree that "say that something is not to be questioned or discussed goes against the idea that science thrives on discussion" that was kinda my point. And I've seen those who hold to the Scientism Philosophical position that Science is the only Source of Truth™©®(pat. pending) argue that we should be not questioning some things because the science of it has been declared as settled.

There's a matter of degree here. Certainly it's true that nothing in science is ever proven to be absolute truth, but there are many areas of science where we would say the supporting evidence is so strong that the science is indeed 'settled'. Of course there will always be a small group of people who think it isn't. Think about these statements:

The best description of motion in the solar system is that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa.

The earth is an oblate spheroid.

The HIV virus is the cause of AIDS.

Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.

Each has a mountain of evidence, each has been researched thoroughly and no falsifying results have ever been seriously maintained after examination, and yet each is denied by some people. Should we really suspend our everyday appraisal that such things are true? Theoretically yes, but for all practical purposes,no.

We know there are a couple of areas in science where debate still rages in the public sphere. I think the real question is whether this debate is informed or not. Issues like anthropogenic climate change and evolution are two that spring to mind. For both, it is fair to say that the vast majority of scientists trained and working in these fields would say the evidence is overwhelming. How many scientists in a field have to agree before we are entitled to agree they are probably right?

[phank]

There's a matter of degree here. Certainly it's true that nothing in science is ever proven to be absolute truth, but there are many areas of science where we would say the supporting evidence is so strong that the science is indeed 'settled'. Of course there will always be a small group of people who think it isn't. Think about these statements:

As Gould phrased it, some scientific conclusions are sufficiently well supported that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. And of course, some folks are perverse.

The best description of motion in the solar system is that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa.

This sounds like Asimov's observation that those who thought the world was flat were wrong, and those who thought the world was a sphere were ALSO wrong, but not quite as much. All objects in the solar system (including the sun) revolve around a common center of gravity. The sun is so massive that that center is nearly always inside the sun somewhere. In most systems (which are binary systems - two stars), the "heliocentric" model is clearly a lousy description.

The earth is an oblate spheroid.

Yup.

The HIV virus is the cause of AIDS.

Well, uh, kinda sorta. More accurately, AIDS is a phase of HIV infection.

Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.

But not for everyone. So this is a statistical argument, and as such, quite correct.

Each has a mountain of evidence, each has been researched thoroughly and no falsifying results have ever been seriously maintained after examination, and yet each is denied by some people. Should we really suspend our everyday appraisal that such things are true? Theoretically yes, but for all practical purposes,no.

Well, I think we make the same point here. Scientific findings are approximations subject to improvement. Some are statistical, describing trends and functions. And once again (and I agree entirely), beyond some resounding level of ratification, it's perverse to reject some things.

We know there are a couple of areas in science where debate still rages in the public sphere. I think the real question is whether this debate is informed or not. Issues like anthropogenic climate change and evolution are two that spring to mind. For both, it is fair to say that the vast majority of scientists trained and working in these fields would say the evidence is overwhelming. How many scientists in a field have to agree before we are entitled to agree they are probably right?

Ummm. This is very difficult, because your terms are vague. There are certainly many who reject evolution. But if you were to somehow plot this out conceptually, you'd find that the factor that distinguished those who accept evolution from those who don't is most emphatically NOT information or knowledge of evolution. Instead, it is ideology. With the result that the two sides talk right past one another, with one side waving 150 years of dedicated research all consistent supporting a deep and sophisticated model, and the other side waving a bible regarded as Absolute Truth, which is interpreted to say evolution is bunk. Which "information" should be considered dispositive? Certainly both sides regard the other as completely missing the point. I'd argue that if we had a time machine with which creationists could WATCH evolution in action, they'd still regard it as nonsense. And if they could trot out an actual god to testify that evolution is all wrong, those blinded by mere reality would still stick to their evidence.

(And interestingly, Jorge and I are the only ones so far to check off point #1. Modern science is quite consistenly insistent that the dead stay dead, and that miracles do not happen.)

[rogero]

....

(And interestingly, Jorge and I are the only ones so far to check off point #1. Modern science is quite consistenly insistent that the dead stay dead, and that miracles do not happen.)

Ah, 'tis telling.... two peas in a pod.... Both Fundy a-holes....

[lilpixieofterror]

(And interestingly, Jorge and I are the only ones so far to check off point #1. Modern science is quite consistenly insistent that the dead stay dead, and that miracles do not happen.)

It is because you two both have the same mentality, but two different dogma's. I have often said that fundy atheist and fundy Christians are one in the same, they both hold to their black and white views of the Bible. The only difference is what is being defended and what is being rejected, the mentality, thinking style, and method is all the same.

[DuraGizer]

I go with "Modern science is neutral towards any questions involving God", but place emphasis on modern. It's possible this could change in the future.

[shunyadragon]

It is because you two both have the same mentality, but two different dogma's. I have often said that fundy atheist and fundy Christians are one in the same, they both hold to their black and white views of the Bible. The only difference is what is being defended and what is being rejected, the mentality, thinking style, and method is all the same.

What is the difference between a 'fundi' atheist, and plan old ordinary run of the mill atheist.

[NeilUnreal]

Science is simply a distillation process for finding highly predictable patterns.

-Neil

[Xru]

Modern science has developed a rigorous methodology that requires peer review, reproducibility, publication and so on. In this sense Galileo wasn't doing science like we do science. Because of the development of this methodology, modern science over the last 150 years has led to the most spectacular explosion of human knowledge in history.

I really not trying to be a nitpick but attributing the explosion of human knowledge in history over the last 150 years to science developing a rigorous methodology that requires peer review etc. is questionable in my mind at least. I don't think Paul K Feyerabend would agree with you; beside there were a lot of other things going on besides the adaption of methodological standards in science at the time of say 1850 - 60. My impression is that it is notoriously hard if not impossible to look too history and conclusively decide the causal factors in any change;)


BTW, do you still live in Australia. If so how the weather?

[Xru]

Science is simply a distillation process for finding highly predictable patterns.

-Neil

Now you are talking!

[Xru]

As Gould phrased it, some scientific conclusions are sufficiently well supported that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. And of course, some folks are perverse.

phank old buddy - -- hope you are as happy to see me back as I am to run across you. Hope you don't mind the tire marks;) And best of all we agree on this. Happy day!

I'd argue that if we had a time machine with which creationists could WATCH evolution in action, they'd still regard it as nonsense.

I could only find this to pick at in your last paragraph. I'm not so sure that this is correct. There is a limit to the capability of most people to continue to deny the reality of what they see or conceptualize as the truth. IMHO, or maybe not so HO, I would guess that there would be a very, very large number of totally shocked YEC, anti-TOE Creationists many of which would have psychotic breaks, bouts of deep depression when confronted with such evidence.

I'm sure there would be some hold outs similar to the Holocaust denier nut cases we still see.

I'm curious as an ardent supporter of TOE what would be your reaction to taking a time machine ride back in time and watching things progress in the exact same way as the YEC's say it happened . . . hypothetically of course?

[phank]

It is because you two both have the same mentality, but two different dogma's. I have often said that fundy atheist and fundy Christians are one in the same, they both hold to their black and white views of the Bible. The only difference is what is being defended and what is being rejected, the mentality, thinking style, and method is all the same.

Provided, of course, that we completely ignore or rule out any possible role for evidence. You know, that stuff that tends to support or refute a claim. And if you wish to regard those who RESPECT evidence as being "fundamentalists" for doing so, rather than adusting their claims to their emotional preferences, then you're right. Scientists are fundies. They HAVE to be. Evidence matters in science.

[phank]

I'm curious as an ardent supporter of TOE what would be your reaction to taking a time machine ride back in time and watching things progress in the exact same way as the YEC's say it happened . . . hypothetically of course?

I support ToE because that's what a truly enormous body of consistent evidence indicates. So at best, the time machine would tell me that in the past, all currently observed mechanisms had a sudden starting point, and before that organisms just appeared out of nowhere by means impossible to determine. BUT if that's the way it was, that's the way it was. I would hope that there might be some discernable mechanism for this, but if not, then there wasn't. At least, that trip would tell us exactly at what time evolution started, since we need no time machine to SEE that it's happening all around us in real time.