Scientific evidence against religion?

Originally posted by Mindship
'Tis true.
Is God an invention or a discovery? Hard enough it is to empirically prove the existence of a transempirical entity. Harder still to prove that God is solely of man's making, for one would first have to prove that God really, truly does Not exist (normally one does Not have to prove a negative, but in this instance, against the claim of "Man created God," the alternate explanation--God created Man--should be ruled out, or we could be dealing with variable contamination).

Originally posted by Regret
While I would normally agree, I do not believe it possible to address the subject of God and religion from the same position that one would take when addressing a normal phenomena. There are abundant claims to the validity of many religious beliefs. These claims are not held as valid by the scientific community, either due to inability to reproduce at will the evidence or because the claim is beyond the scope of current understanding of scientific principles. A high frequency and number of these events are present and in varied and unrelated settings, leading one to question the logic behind discounting the possibility of at least a portion of these events being accurate accounts of events. A stance that denies the abundant nature of the phenomenon as holding some validity appears to me to be in error. One should not discount the possibility, one should be skeptical, but one should not arrive at a conclusion and assume it scientific due to a lack of experimentally described evidence on the subject.

My feeling is, Science is defined, not by nature of proof, but by method. And Scientific Method, IMO, can be used to investigate nonempirical phenomena as long as one is fair about it, ie, the tools used and data collected reflect the domain being studied (eg, you don't use a microscope to study logic).

Unfortunately, while I can appreciate the essence of your statement, "claims" are not proof; they are, at best, hints of a phenomenon's existence...perhaps of the phenomenon in question, perhaps of some completely unknown phenomenon which has nothing to do with the one in question but would fit the current/empirical paradigm better, were it known.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-- Carl Sagan

Of course, this is what works for me. Being well-aware of the power of wish-fulfillment, my preference is for reliable, valid proof of a phenomenon as guard against what I would like to think is true.

Originally posted by Mindship
Which is why I said "empirical" in my prior post.

My feeling is, Science is defined, not by nature of proof, but by method. And Scientific Method, IMO, can be used to investigate nonempirical phenomena as long as one is fair about it, ie, the tools used and data collected reflect the domain being studied (eg, you don't use a microscope to study logic).

Unfortunately, while I can appreciate the essence of your statement, "claims" are not proof; they are, at best, hints of a phenomenon's existence...perhaps of the phenomenon in question, perhaps of some completely unknown phenomenon which has nothing to do with the one in question but would fit the current/empirical paradigm better, were it known.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-- Carl Sagan

Of course, this is what works for me. Being well-aware of the power of wish-fulfillment, my preference is for reliable, valid proof of a phenomenon as guard against what I would like to think is true.

John A. Widtsoe, LDS Apostle (1921-1952)
CAN THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD BE EMPLOYED IN RELIGION?

Civilization and enlightenment have come when men, using the experimental
method, have begun to test the correctness of their beliefs. The highway to
truth is paved with such rigid tests.

On the contrary, the black cloud of superstition and confusion, twin
enemies of progress, has obscured human vision when untested opinions or
unverified claims or personal guesses have ruled human actions, or when
assumed authority has claimed precedence over patient inquiry. The blind
acceptance of unsupported statements, or placing theories upon a pedestal for
human worship, has always been a source of sorrow.

Whenever men have set up devices or experiments to test the validity of
their opinions, whenever men have demanded proofs of the verity of offered
teachings, the world has moved forward. To test current beliefs, Galileo
dropped stones of unequal weights from a height; Lavoisier weighed mercury
before and after heating; Pasteur filtered air through tufts of cotton; Lister
washed wounds with a solution of carbolic acid -- and each destroyed a false
belief and revealed a new truth: stones of all sizes fall through the air with
equal velocity; mercury becomes heavier when heated in air; microscopic living
things, in the air, are often capable of injury to man; in wounds are germs
which if not destroyed may delay healing. Out of each of these experiments a
vast volume of truth has grown. Our civilization rests upon innumerable such
experiments.

The same principle appears in the field of living things, from animals to
men. The complex relationships of social living must be tested for their
value, if the path of safety is to be found. Though experimentation in this
field is somewhat more difficult because of the human will (the power to
accept or reject) yet, for example, the desirability of organization,
cooperation, and democracy, and the ill effects of autocracy, tyranny, and
dictatorships, have been demonstrated by actual trial.

Spiritual principles that affect human life, are likewise subject to
experiment. Prayer, attendance at Church meetings, the Word of Wisdom, tithing
are but remote beliefs until put into practice and thus tested for their
value. Intelligent man cannot pass worth-while opinion on these and other
principles until he has tried them himself or observed their effects on
others.

Authority, itself, must bow before the experimental method. The reality
of authority is best established by the efficacy of that which it declares and
commands. Authority which is not willing to submit to such a test may well be
questioned. There are today innumerable fantastic cults, leading thousands
astray, which have no foundation beyond the unsupported claims of their
originators.

This does not mean that the experimental method is the only approach to
truth but that it is one of the most important. Nor does it mean that every
man must get drunk to learn the evils of alcohol. Human experience is filled
with the sad examples of those who have toyed with evil and have been
destroyed by it. We can learn from the experience of others, as from our own
as to that which is good or evil.

We can also learn from those wiser than we are. But in accepting guidance
from them we must be certain of their wisdom.

The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ advises men to test its truths in
human life. It approves distinctly of the experimental method. The Savior laid
down the principle in a luminous statement: My doctrine is not mine, but his
that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16, 17) On another
occasion He repeated the thought: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe
me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." (John
10:37, 38) The words of the Apostle Paul, "Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21), are of the same import. There is
constant advice in the scriptures to let the effects of gospel living be
evidence of its truth, as for example: Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven"
(Matthew 5:16); or "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that,
whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works,
which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." (1 Peter 2:12)

Joseph Smith, the Prophet, recognized this method of testing truth. He
read the words of James, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that
giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him"
(James 1:5); and, believing in God, he went into the grove to test the reality
of the promise there made. Thus came the great First Vision.

Running through the scriptures Is the doctrine that truth as well as
untruth may be recognized by its effects, and the counsel is given to test the
claims of the gospel by rendering obedience to its principles of action.
Obedience itself becomes but a call to do certain things so that certain
rewards may be received. Obedience may therefore be counted as a phase of the
experimental method.

All should test their religious beliefs. But all such testing must be
done in the right spirit and by the right method. Every testing must be a
sincere and honest search for truth. The truth or the goodness, not the
untruth or the evil, of a system must be sought; then untruth or evil, if it
exists, is automatically discovered. There must be no bending of means or
methods to bolster up prejudice. An honest seeker after truth must accept
truth unhesitatingly when found, and yield full surrender to it. The
truth-seeker must be single-minded -- for truth. Errors must be thrown out,
however appealing they may be to man-made appetites.

The experimental method is applicable and should be used in the field of
religion as in every other field of human activity. Only then can a full
conviction of its truth be won. "Practicing our religion" is the most direct
method of gaining a "testimony of its truth," and that should be the constant
concern of every Latter-day Saint.

Given the discussion in this thread. According to the participants:

[list][*]It would seem that nothing in science necessitates an atheist stance. [*]The absence of evidence increases the probability of the atheist stance being the correct one. [*]Neither stance is wholly supported, and while the atheist stance is in a stronger position given a logical appraisal of the current information, a theist stance is not negated by scientific fact or evidence.[/list]

Conclusion:

Arguments using science as absolute support for either stance are weak and should be avoided in an intelligent debate. This leads to debate over the subject being a waste of time between an atheist and a theist.

"Every testing must be a sincere and honest search for truth. The truth or the goodness, not the untruth or the evil, of a system must be sought; then untruth or evil, if it exists, is automatically discovered. There must be no bending of means or methods to bolster up prejudice. An honest seeker after truth must accept truth unhesitatingly when found, and yield full surrender to it. The truth-seeker must be single-minded -- for truth. Errors must be thrown out, however appealing they may be to man-made appetites."

Amen

Originally posted by Regret
Arguments using science as absolute support for either stance are weak and should be avoided in an intelligent debate.

This leads to debate over the subject being a waste of time between an atheist and a theist.

Err, that's not a conclusion, it is a biased inference.

The objective conclusion is that science overwhelmingly supports atheism.

Originally posted by Regret
Given the discussion in this thread. According to the participants:

[list][*]It would seem that nothing in science necessitates an atheist stance. [*]The absence of evidence increases the probability of the atheist stance being the correct one. [*]Neither stance is wholly supported, and while the atheist stance is in a stronger position given a logical appraisal of the current information, a theist stance is not negated by scientific fact or evidence.[/list]

Conclusion:

Arguments using science as absolute support for either stance are weak and should be avoided in an intelligent debate. This leads to debate over the subject being a waste of time between an atheist and a theist.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, that's not a conclusion, it is a biased inference.

The objective conclusion is that science overwhelmingly supports atheism.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, that's not a conclusion, it is a biased inference.

The objective conclusion is that science overwhelmingly supports atheism.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.

Originally posted by Regret
This objective conclusion you claim discredits all of man's religious claims for the past millenia, that to me sounds closer to biased inference than a conclusion that assumes the possibility but denies that a scientific stance on the subject either way exists.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.

I dont know.....to be quite honest it seems that arguments for and again'st can both be just as good.

There was this program were they talked about people who had "died", basically there was no brain activity. The person who believed in an afterlife had visions in this state. The person who did not believe in an afterlife experienced nothing.

Originally posted by Regret
This objective conclusion you claim discredits all of man's religious claims for the past millenia, that to me sounds closer to biased inference than a conclusion that assumes the possibility but denies that a scientific stance on the subject either way exists.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

All you are saying now is ;some people hev said it is so so it is biased to ignore them' Contemptible! The majority hed the view the world was flat once, or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Opinions and records are nothing as compared to the attempts of science to discern fact. Scientifically speaking, it is, by many orders of magnitude, far more likely that all these people are lying or wrong than it is for there to be theism, because there is no evidence ofr theism and plenty of evidence of people lying or being wrong about things.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.

Your accusation of bias is laughable.

Science does not approach the matter with bias; it simply looks for facts. The answer, that science supports atheism where it does not support theism, is merely the result of the facts that can be discerned.

I have not fallen 'victim' to anything other than the proper and rational application of science, which does not support theism and hence, by dfefault, supports atheism.

You have certainly fallen victim to both a fuzzy view if science and a fuzzy view of bias and, in saying that religious claims are based in fact, simply a fuzzy view of the world entire.

Luckily, this thread isn't about what you erroneously believe, simply about why science discounts theism. Now, you can agree or disagree, but the reason has been provided and there is nothing you can do about it, because it is simply where the evidence leads. Theism needs evidence. Science would be extremely interested in finding and defining any such evidence, as it would be interested in finding and describing any phenomenon that exists. There is none, any more than there is for the tooth fairy. End of story.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your accusation of bias is laughable.

Science does not approach the matter with bias; it simply looks for facts. The answer, that science supports atheism where it does not support theism, is merely the result of the facts that can be discerned.

I have not fallen 'victim' to anything other than the proper and rational application of science, which does not support theism and hence, by dfefault, supports atheism.

You have certainly fallen victim to both a fuzzy view if science and a fuzzy view of bias and, in saying that religious claims are based in fact, simply a fuzzy view of the world entire.

Luckily, this thread isn't about what you erroneously believe, simply about why science discounts theism. Now, you can agree or disagree, but the reason has been provided and there is nothing you can do about it, because it is simply where the evidence leads. Theism needs evidence. Science would be extremely interested in finding and defining any such evidence, as it would be interested in finding and describing any phenomenon that exists. There is none, any more than there is for the tooth fairy. End of story.

KILL THE WISE ONE!!

If I had the time, I would've quoted Regret and explain the faults, so instead I'm just gonna agree with Ushgarak on this.

Originally posted by Regret
This objective conclusion you claim discredits all of man's religious claims for the past millenia, that to me sounds closer to biased inference than a conclusion that assumes the possibility but denies that a scientific stance on the subject either way exists.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.

The person who nitpicks aspects of science that support his beleifs, while ignoring aspects of science which contradicts his beleifs wants to talk about BIAS ?

😆

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The person who nitpicks aspects of science that support his beleifs, while ignoring aspects of science which contradicts his beleifs wants to talk about BIAS ?

😆

here

Second, everyone is biased. Admitting the bias is the point. Atheists, like JIA and usagi yojimbo Christians, seem to have difficulty doing this. Science is silent on the subject of God, I admit it. I do not claim scientific fact supports theism, I claim that it does not support either atheism or theism. Logic based on existing science may support atheism, but science itself does not.

Originally posted by Regret
Second, everyone is biased. Admitting the bias is the point. Atheists, like JIA and usagi yojimbo Christians, seem to have difficulty doing this. Science is silent on the subject of God, I admit it. I do not claim scientific fact supports theism, I claim that it does not support either atheism or theism. Logic based on existing science may support atheism, but science itself does not.

Funny, because earlier I recall you claiming that science heavily supports the existance of God.

Changed our stance over night ?

And Logic based on science, actually disproves the existance of God more than it does prove.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Funny, because earlier I recall you claiming that science heavily supports the existence of God.

Changed our stance over night ?

And Logic based on science, actually disproves the existence of God more than it does prove.

No, I never claimed that science heavily supports the existence of God. I believe that, from my perspective it does. I do not believe that from an unbiased position it supports either position, theism or atheism.

"Logic based on existing science may support atheism, but science itself does not." You last sentence seems to be restating what I said.