Science-Religion. Which wins?

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 10:13am

Before any of that has any weight, you have to show that I in fact am basing my beliefs on lies, deceptions, and unflinching faith in a holy book.

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 10:16am

Actually, Economics is a science. It takes knowledge about the interactions of people and businesses and then tries to condense them into theories, such as Capitalism, which can be used to predict future events. If these theories fail to predict events successfully, then they must be modified or rejected.

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 10:22am

Actually, it is. You don’t know that the earth revolves around the sun. You have faith that it is true, based on what others have told you. In this case, it is exceptionally well-justified faith.

CelaPlusAimaple · August 10, 2010, 10:23am

^^^^ Okay. I guess the atheist belief would be that our brains work in cause and effect since everything is made up of molecules that behave in necessarily predictable ways.

As a Romanticist and a Renaissance Humanist, I can’t really give any statement as to the validity of that belief to an atheist, but I do know that most existentialist philosophers (with the exception of Kierkegaard) were atheist but also obviously believed in free will. idk if they thought that this “free” will was predetermined by genetics and whatnot so that people act predictably based on how their brain already functions, or if this was true free will where the mind is a force able to act unpredictably, despite, perhaps, the biological mechanisms that instigate it

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 10:23am

Ok then. But there’s very little justification to argue and fight for nothing.

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 10:30am

Well, if some religions are true, then atheists will be punished in the afterlife. But they will have harmed no one but themselves by bringing this punishment on themselves.

Christianity didn’t cause the Inquisition. It is not supported in any way by the Bible. In fact, you could argue that it was the lack of Christianity that caused it, since if they had been living according to the teachings of Jesus they would never have done such things. I can’t speak for Islam, but I suspect that the same is true in most cases: If people actually followed what their religion taught, they wouldn’t commit these outrages.

Sithis · August 10, 2010, 2:39pm

@MM

I don’t see how not being a theist would necessarily preclude one from believing in a mind-body duality. Yes, I suppose it would be contradictory to reject theism on the basis of lack of evidence for it and then accept the idea of some sort of supernatural consciousness with obvious lack of evidence for it, but that’s people for you.

JeSuis · August 10, 2010, 2:59pm

I would be much more apt to follow a religion if I wasn’t SCARED into believing it… Just some food for though for those of you who think religion is a game where you must gather the most amount of followers before you die.

I have done, let’s say 45 labs in my high school career. 45/45 of those labs have gone just how the teacher told me they would.
I have prayed, let’s say 200 times in my life. Probably around 15/200 of those prayers resulted how I wanted.
If I was so inclined to prove that the earth revolves around the sun, I could do so with a large amount of work.
If I was so inclined to prove that god exists, I could put years of effort into the project with no conclusive answer.
I don’t disbelieve in god per se. I’m just waiting for him to be PROVEN to me. And so far this has not happened, so therefore science is more important to me.

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 3:01pm

^^ My point exactly.

If you believe in a supernatural mind, how can you reject a God for being “supernatural”?

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 3:05pm

I very much agree. But I didn’t make up my religion, so I can’t change it just to make it more palatable to me or others.

If, to my best knowledge, this really IS how the world is, would it be better for me to lie and say it isn’t just because more people would believe me?

JeSuis · August 10, 2010, 3:06pm

what the hell? Since when do atheists believe that? You’re making things up to make yourself seem right…

Sithis · August 10, 2010, 3:30pm

@MM

What do you say to people who say that free will doesn’t exist if a god exists because that god would have to be omniscient?

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 3:36pm

45/45? Wow, your labs went better than mine… But I digress :P

This is a lot more reasonable than some of the rhetoric I have heard. “I don’t believe God exists because so far the evidence doesn’t seem to favor it” is much better than “I don’t believe God exists because Science has proven He doesn’t and He is inherently illogical”. You seem to take a similar view towards God to the view I take towards Evolution.

But while we’re on epistemology, just how would you prove that the earth revolves around the sun? At best, you could collect more evidence and make it a more and more well justified faith.

But since, for one thing, you can never be completely certain even of your own senses, how could you truly prove it?

See [Cartesian</a> doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt]Cartesian”>Cartesian doubt - Wikipedia)

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 3:37pm

Most professed Atheists do not believe this. Therefore contradicting themselves, as it follows directly from an absence of belief in the supernatural.

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 3:40pm

I say that to know something is not the same as to cause it. But that is a valid question.

I would also say that God, who is not bound to time and space as we are, doesn’t neccesarily percieve reality in series like we do. Therefore to say God knows something “before it happens” may be a meaningless statement.

Sithis · August 10, 2010, 3:43pm

What I mean, is that if God is cognizant of the future, then humans cannot have free will because the future has to already be laid out for it to be “seen.” Unless you believe that God is not prescient?

Sithis · August 10, 2010, 3:51pm

As for the “earth revolves around the sun” debate, I will re-post something I posted earlier since I think it was largely ignored.

From: [Astronomy:</a> The earth revolves around the sun, earth revolves around the sun, independent reality](<a href=“http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/earth-revolves-around-sun.htm]Astronomy:”>http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/earth-revolves-around-sun.htm)

Someone asks a scientist/astronomer:

The response:

First a word on scientific process, “knowing” and “proof”. In scientific inquiry, there is actually very little attention to what is called “proof” - we tend to leave that to the mathematicians!

Solutions of scientific problems are instead assessed for adequacy, that is, in respect to the extent to which the observations - evidence meet reasonable demands.

To fix ideas, I may present you with something that constitutes adequate evidence of what you seek - but from your frame of reference (for whatever reason) it may be declared “inadequate”. Fine, then I can dig deeper and provide more detailed - beyond adequate- material.

“Proof” is another thing entirely. Nothing in science, really is proven for all times and conditions. And this is what is assumed when one mentions or demands “proof”, e.g. an ironclad, irrefutable, implacable and seamless web of observations or evidence, not subject to exceptions or variations.

**But in twenty -five years of research experience I’ve seen nothing like that. **

**So, it is doubtful that I can “prove” to you that the Earth revolves around the Sun, irrespective of what I say.<a href=“Since%20you%20may%20always%20find%20or%20think%20of%20some%20loophole%20wherein%20the%20tended%20%22proof%22%20falls%20or%20fails%20in%20one%20way%20or%20other”>/b</a>.

Generally, demonstration is limited by a set of assumptions, and also by acceptance of what given observations mean. If you therefore reject either or both of these, it’s doubtful that whatever I provide will be found satisfactory.

First, one must assume that: Earth is a planet and not some confection of the mind, or “virtual entity” within we all find ourselves. In other words, there exists an objective and independent reality.

Also, one must assume that whatever I can tell you that I can see, or observe, you can also. If you are blind, for example, even partially, this assumption fails and what I provide is useless.

Third, we must assume that the language I am referencing is also understood by you to mean the same thing. Else, all bets are off.

In terms of the observations, it must be clear that what I describe is reasonable to you, and moreoever can be confirmed and duplicated where you are. It must also be at least approximately true, that the meaning of the observations as I interpret them, is also shared by you.

**If any of these breaks down, then what I tender will be dismissed. **

That out of the way, let’s get to specifics. If the Earth revolves around the Sun - and is not static in space - then it must be true that over the course of a year say, we observe differences - for example in:

i) the stars that appear at the same time in the night sky

ii) the altitude and azimuth (position with respect to the horizon’s N, S points) of the Sun.

The first is easily verified, say over the course of obseving the night sky at the same time (say, 8 p.m. local time) each night. You will therefore see a procession of different stars, objects as time goes by.

This is the first indicator that Earth must be moving through space and not stationary.

A further observation to reinforce this is revolution and not merely linear displacement is obtained by repeating said observations year after year and making notes of the objects seen.

In the same 6-month period, therefore, you ought to see the same objects in the night sky at the same time.

This implies repetitive motion, and hence that the Earth is not merely linearly moving in space, but returning time and again to the same relative position in space (e.g. in it s orbit)

Second, the position, altitude of the Sun. If you do the same thing for the Sun, you will note its changing positions both in altitude - at specific calendar dates - and its rising (and setting) positions along the horizon.

Thus, it ought to be obvious - again, say over a 6-month period of observation - that these are changing.

Again, if you repeat them year after year you will see the exact same positions duplicated, suggesting that the Earth is returning to its same position in space relative to the Sun. (The seasons, of course, are also indicators of this)

Of course, you can refine measurements - say of the Sun’s changing altitude - through the use of an instrument like an astrolabe (which can easily be made using a lead bob attached to a string, and affixed to a wooden or cardboard protractor). 

Hopefully, this will help you to see how we know the Earth revolves around the Sun - **even though I do not claim it is “proof”. **

I think that this is a much more reasonable approach than “it is an irrefutable truth that the earth revolves around the sun (and while we’re at it let’s use this “fact” as an analogy to the “truth” of evolutionary theory).”

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 4:21pm

^ Minor quibble: The evidence you describe is actually best explained by the earth being fixed and the rest revolving around it… It was the discovery of stellar parallax that finally showed that view to be flawed.

But anyway, yes, your point is true. Nothing can be proven in science.

MosbyMarion · August 10, 2010, 4:23pm

The word “prescient” has no meaning if God isn’t inside of time. C. S. Lewis tried to explain it, but it’s really a bit beyond our 3.5 dimensional perception to understand, I think.

Sithis · August 10, 2010, 4:55pm

I guess you can take that up with that astronomer then haha. My emphasis was on the scientific view of proof and how difficult it is to actually “prove” something.

How does a static earth explain this better than a revolving earth, though?:

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I don’t know what you are talking about at all. If everything revolved around the earth daily, why would there be differences in the stars at the same time each night?

And even if you suggest different periods of revolution for different celestial objects, this would involve the use of many epicycles making geocentric theory much more complicated than heliocentric theory, so I don’t see why a static earth explains it “better.”

Science-Religion. Which wins?

CONNECT WITH US