quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.

What do you think?

quote:

I'm not entirely sure I know what they meant, but I don't think they were saying that "scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism," as though the practice of science were corrosive to faith.
Rather, I think they were saying that when science actually manages to explain something, it invariably(*) does so without introducing supernatural agents or miracles. So when meteorologists demonstrate that rain is caused by such-and-so, this eliminates the theistic explanation that rain is Jove micturating in a sieve. Meteorology is not 'atheistic' in the positive sense; it just doesn't make any use of the god hypothesis. Alternative theories that rely on little gods to do the work get disproven.

To take another example:

Theist: God makes the planets go around the sun in their orbits.
Scientist: No, that's well explained by the theory of gravity.
Theist: Oh yeah? Well, who wrote the law of gravity and set it into force, Mr. SmartyPants?
Scientist: That's not part of the theory. I dunno.
Theist: Ha! God wrote the law of gravity.
Scientist: I can neither confirm nor deny that.

quote:

[(*) Some maintain that science could never prove the 'supernatural' or the miraculous or the existence of gods. I'm not so pessimistic. If a woman showed up and walked on water in the lab to everyone's satisfaction, I don't think physicists would try to look for a modification of general relativity that would allow this phenomenon in a naturalistic theory of gravity. It would become, for lack of a better words, a scientifically verified miracle/supernatural occurence. Sadly, miracles of this sort do not seem to occur nowadays in a setting where they can be evaluated by science. Until we have some miracles to study, there's nothing for science to evaluate that could lead to a conclusion of miracle.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:


Theist: God makes the planets go around the sun in their orbits.
Scientist: No, that's well explained by the theory of gravity.
Theist: Oh yeah? Well, who wrote the law of gravity and set it into force, Mr. SmartyPants?
Scientist: That's not part of the theory. I dunno.
Theist: Ha! God wrote the law of gravity.
Scientist: I can neither confirm nor deny that.

I don't think the authors are that magnanimous:

There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution.

That seems to be a pretty straight forward argument that, at least from the materialist perspective, the conflict is inherent.

quote:

Actually, I think if people could routinely do that which we now consider to be miraculous in a way that was amenable to scientific observation, then by definition it would cease being miraculous because it would be ordinary.

quote:

Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.

quote:

A recent letter to Nature, by Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester, and Jerry Coyne of the The University of Chicago concluded this way:

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

A recent letter to Nature, by Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester, and Jerry Coyne of the The University of Chicago concluded this way:

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

They were basically disputing a Nature editorial praising the Templeton Foundation, an organization devoted to being a, "philanthropic catalyst for scientific discovery on what scientists and philosophers call the 'Big Questions.' Ranging from questions about the laws of nature to the nature of creativity and consciousness, the Foundation’s philanthropic vision is derived from Sir John’s resolute belief that rigorous research and cutting-edge scholarship is at the very heart of new discoveries and human progress". The Templeton Foundation is open to research which explores the nature and contributions of religious ideas.

Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.

What do you think?

quote:

Scientific exploration certainly leads to the rejection of paranormal events and supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.

quote:

Why would science lead to a de facto rejection of a supernatural explanation?

quote:

By definition, observational science can only detect or measure or study natural phenomena or objects or processes.

quote:

I think you may be confusing things, Jack. No one rejects the existence of the moon, only that the moon was created on day 4 by supernatural design and fiat. The conflict remains: What is the explanation for the moon's existence, not what are the parameters of its existence (such as distance from Earth).

quote:

But even if it could point to a certain set of events leading to the eventuality of the existence of the moon, it wouldn't be a 'rejection' of a 'supernatural' explanation of the moon's existence as the science is by necessity limited to only investigating the natural aspects of the existence of the moon to begin with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

The criteria for something to be scientific is falsifiability. As long as something is falsifiable, then it's scientific. Intelligent design, for example, is falsifiable. UCD (universal common descent) is unfalsifiable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I think you may be confusing things, Jack. No one rejects the existence of the moon, only that the moon was created on day 4 by supernatural design and fiat. The conflict remains: What is the explanation for the moon's existence, not what are the parameters of its existence (such as distance from Earth).

Well, I am certainly capable of confusing things, though I think not this time. You can't 'reject' something based on the inability to detect or measure it with a particular set of tools. I don't 'reject' the existence of human rights because there is no scientific or empirical method by which to detect them - and interestingly neither do most materialists.

In terms of an explanation, I think your example maybe actually be asking two different questions - the first being 'why' does the moon exist, a convenient satellite that stabilizes our planet's movement on it's access ad aids in the regular rhythm of our tides so beneficial for life? Science of course can't really tell us why - it's just there as far as science is concerned.

As to 'how' it came to be there (and by corollary, when) science can offer some interesting scientific speculation and even some demonstrable mechanisms, though obviously no certain proof for a unique past events. But even if it could point to a certain set of events leading to the eventuality of the existence of the moon, it wouldn't be a 'rejection' of a 'supernatural' explanation of the moon's existence as the science is by necessity limited to only investigating the natural aspects of the existence of the moon to begin with.

quote:

Only ID proponents believe ID to be falsifiable. Scientists do not.

quote:

The why and the "how it came to be there" are the same question. Anything beyond that is outside the realm of science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The why and the "how it came to be there" are the same question. Anything beyond that is outside the realm of science.

No they aren't - if 'how it came to be' is the product of unguided incidental forces, then ultimately there is no answer to 'why' - it just is.

quote:

Why is the sky blue?

Is exactly the same question as: How did the sky come to be blue?

Is the blueness of the sky the result of ID or unguided incidental forces? This is not a question science even attempts to address. It is outside the realm of science and should be addressed by philosophers and theologists.

quote:

Why is the sky blue?

Is exactly the same question as: How did the sky come to be blue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Why is the sky blue?

Is exactly the same question as: How did the sky come to be blue?

Is the blueness of the sky the result of ID or unguided incidental forces? This is not a question science even attempts to address. It is outside the realm of science and should be addressed by philosophers and theologists.

Actually, the answer to the question doesn't really answer the question - we always answer that question by explaining what set of circumstances make the sky blue - but that isn't really an answer to why (which properly understood means 'to what purpose?').

I know English is a bit messy, but I think clarity is important.