"Religious apologists, spiritualist gurus, and accommodating atheists have been bombarding us with assertions that science and religion have no reason not to get along. This may be politically convenient, but it's simply untrue. Science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable, and they always will be.

"Faith is belief in the absence of supportive evidence and even in the light of contrary evidence. No one disputes that religion is based on faith. Some authors claim that science is also based on faith. They argue that science takes it on faith that the world is rational and that nature can be ordered in an intelligible way.

"However, science makes no such assumption on faith. It analyzes observations by applying certain methodological rules and formulates models to describe those observations. It justifies that process by its practical success, not by any logical deduction derived from dubious metaphysical assumptions. We must distinguish faith from trust. Science has earned our trust by its proven success. Religion has destroyed our trust by its repeated failure."

~ Victor Stenger

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/religion-and-science-_...

Views: 335

Replies to This Discussion

How do you reconcile a discipline based in logic and reason with a faith founded in irrationality and emotion?  By what mechanism do verified and tested fact and unsupported myth agree?  The answers are, in order, "you can't," and "there is none."

Faith Is NO Reason.

I'm going to say that and say that and say that until the message sinks in.

Thanks Loren, I needed that! I can't find a little old lady with a head-slap. This will have to do.

By what mechanism do verified and tested fact and unsupported myth agree? 

By what mechanism do verified and tested fact and unsupported myth agree? 

By what mechanism do verified and tested fact and unsupported myth agree? 

By what mechanism do verified and tested fact and unsupported myth agree? 

 "you can't," and "there is none."

 "you can't," and "there is none."

 "you can't," and "there is none."

 "you can't," and "there is none."

I like this head-slap better:

 

Good

As scientists discover more and more about what the universe is really like, they are closing all the spaces that a god could occupy. It's the liberal religionists I don't understand. A fundamentalist at least is clear: "either what X book says is true is or is not and I am going to opt for is and deny all contrary evidence." The liberal religionist says, "Yes, I know that science and history and archeology prove it is all bunk, but at least it has 'spiritual' meaning." What kind of cop-out is that? If, in fact, the holy book is a bunch of myths, legends, folktales, outdated laws, and ancient morality codes, then what makes it any more "spiritual" than any other writing from the same period? Science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that religion is simply part of humanity's childhood and that it is now time to put away childish things. OK, a few good ideas come from holy books, but very few, and none that one cannot find said equally well somewhere else.

David, you describe religion as I see it. 

"Science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that religion is simply part of humanity's childhood and that it is now time to put away childish things. "

David Layton

David, I agree with you and Joan, as well as Loren.  You guys say it far better than I, so I'll leave it at that.

Spud, your affirmation counts as speaking up. Your input has value to me. 

I have to agree with Professor Lawrence Krause on this one. Science can't technically disprove god, it can only make it easier to not believe in him. There are too many ways that someone can view there god to make it possible to say that god doesn't exist. With that, it is possible to have religion and science but the only way that you can is by making it so that god is in a untraceable  unprovable bubble of sorts. So behind the scenes that god can fit into any find in science. 

I do think that god of majority of traditions has been pushed back so far into a corner that it's safe to say such a god didn't exist at all. Or he's loki.

Science can't technically prove there are no elves making cookies in hollow trees.  Elven cookyists can't prove that there are.  But which is more likely?

Science cannot disprove the existence of God.  But disproving the claims of religion s child's play.

OK, I am ready to learn your disproof of religion. 

The CLAIMS of religion.  Jesus Christ was dead for three days, then he got up and started walking around.  Empirical observation and deductive reasoning tell us that people don't DO that.  Dead people stay dead.

The earth is less than six thousand years old, according to Bishop Ussher.  Scientific evidence, using multiple methodologies,  tells us that it is somewhere on the order of 4 billion years old.

The earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created in less than a week.  Scientific evidence tells us that all of these needed hundreds of millions, if not billions, or years to form.

In Genesis, we are told that light existed three days before the sources of light existed.  Balderdash.

Genesis 1:6 tells us that the sky is a solid dome for keeping two bodies of water separate.  But it isn't solid.

Jesus walked on water.  Impossible.

Jesus turned water into wine.  Can't be done.

Judas Iscariot died in two different ways.  Sorry, but you only get one

Simon Magus couldn't really fly.

Moses turned Aaron's staff into a serpent.  Impossible.

Pharoah's magicians turned their staffs into serpents.  Baloney.

Balaam's donkey talked to him.  Not in this universe.

Eve was seduced by a snake.

Speaking of snakes, the Lord sent venomous serpents to bite the Israelites because they were complaining about having to eat manna every day.  But Moses made a serpent out of bronze; just looking at it cured victims of snakebite.

Whenever holy books make claims of fact, disproof is easy.  I think we forget that the fundamental sine qua nons of religious belief are contrary to the fundamentals of science.

Besides, an empty tomb proves exactly nothing.

Craig

Powerful and specific. Looks like a new thread to me:  CLAIMS of religion refuted. 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service