Why are believers anti-science?

[Lerxst]

(Q):

In an effort to break out of the tennis match we are in, lets strip this down to a bare-bones kind of god-belief, and see if we can pinpoint where the possible problems stand vis-a-vis science.

(Disclaimer - these are not my beliefs, I am an agnostic - I'm just acting the part of a theist here)

1. There is a god that cannot be detected via any instrument of science
2. Ancient "holy" books are myths, do not necessarily reflect anything accurate about god.
3. This god is in some sense reponsible for our universe exisiting.
4. This god provides some kind of afterlife scenario for humans.

That's it. Yes, I understand there is no evidence for such a being, I never said there was. It's speculation. What can science tell us in regard to it?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

(Q):



That's it. Yes, I understand there is no evidence for such a being, I never said there was. It's speculation. What can science tell us in regard to it?

I can't say what science can say, but I can say science is in its infancy.
Supreme beings and their detection would surely be beyond every human beings comprehension, we would not begin to know how to investigate, what to look for? Are we even biologically equipped to see it if indeed it can be seen? It could be outside the realm of our 5 senses.....

If we were building robots and didn't want to them to know our existance/origin..we'd just include something in their programming to make it so?

 

[(Q)]

(Q):

In an effort to break out of the tennis match we are in, lets strip this down to a bare-bones kind of god-belief, and see if we can pinpoint where the possible problems stand vis-a-vis science.

1. There is a god that cannot be detected via any instrument of science

How about instead, there is no evidence gods can be detected using any instrument of science?

2. Ancient "holy" books are myths, do not necessarily reflect anything accurate about god.

I prefer, Ancient "holy" books are mostly myths, do not necessarily reflect anything accurate about nature and make claims for the existence of the supernatural.

3. This god is in some sense reponsible for our universe exisiting.

And further, is responsible for the destinies of humans.

4. This god provides some kind of afterlife scenario for humans.

But must create another supernatural being to reside over an eternal damnation.

That's it. Yes, I understand there is no evidence for such a being, I never said there was. It's speculation. What can science tell us in regard to it?

Science doesn't really tell us anything about it, science helps us to understand nature, and that it evolved all on its own. The fact that nature reveals no clues, no signs, no indications whatsoever for the need or the existence of gods, is an ideal conjured from human fabrications.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

To my mind we are incapable of conceiving anything that does not exist, we may think it does not exist but at some point will be shown to exist..am I wrong when I understand that the idea of the 'atom' was concieved of 2000 yrs before its was proven?

 

[superluminal]

1. There is a god that cannot be detected via any instrument of science...

... What can science tell us in regard to it?

Have you not answered your own question? If science rests on the ability to show a thing by repeatable observations of many kinds and/or experimental verification, then the answer must be "nothing" I would think.

 

[Lerxst]

Have you not answered your own question? If science rests on the ability to show a thing by repeatable observations of many kinds and/or experimental verification, then the answer must be "nothing" I would think.

Right. So it's silly to insist on using the tools of science and only those tools in trying to address the question. They don't apply. That is why it isn't "hypocrisy" to to do science and yet hold certain kinds of beliefs that are part and parcel outside of science.

 

[Lerxst]

How about instead, there is no evidence gods can be detected using any instrument of science?

Ok.

I prefer, Ancient "holy" books are mostly myths, do not necessarily reflect anything accurate about nature and make claims for the existence of the supernatural.

Ok.

And further, is responsible for the destinies of humans.

Not necessarily - maybe god doesn't know what each of us is going to do. I never said anything about omniscience.

But must create another supernatural being to reside over an eternal damnation.

Why? What damnation? My hypothetical theist doesn't believe in that doctrine.

Science doesn't really tell us anything about it, science helps us to understand nature, and that it evolved all on its own. The fact that nature reveals no clues, no signs, no indications whatsoever for the need or the existence of gods, is an ideal conjured from human fabrications.

I agree with this up to the last couple words. I'd say it is an idea that can be reached only via philosophical musings. And moreover, that doesn't necessarily invalidate it, it simply means it is speculative and has no evidentiary support.

 

[(Q)]

The kind I've been mentioning - why is there a universe at all? Are there other levels to reality we cannot perceive? Is there a god or gods? etc...

Those are irrelevant questions that only serve to pamper mythical speculation. If the universe simply just IS, then asking the question 'why' is all but superficial.

I don't feel that such questions of human meaning are in the purview of science. Neither did Stephen Jay Gould.

My bad, I may have worded that incorrectly. Science may not actually conclude a purpose is not neccessary, but we as humans would not have been given reason to make such conclusions of purpose from science.

I honestly don't know - but I doubt it.

You don't seem to have too much "faith" in science.

The question to life, the universe and everything is in fact 42. In other words, it is what you make it.

See, but you keep separating the world into atheistic scientists and theists that reject science. Someone like Miller does accept everything science says about the world around us. He doesn't look to the bible for geological and biological theories. He only looks to it for questions that nothing in science can answer. There is no conflict.

What questions could the bible possibly answer that can't be answered from anywhere else?

It's not hypocrisy if they religion and science are non-overlapping majesteria.

It is if the scientists work reveals nothing about gods yet he goes on believing in such things. The scientist did not come to any conclusions in his professional work that gave rise to assuming gods, why then make gods part of his reality.

Wishful thinking? Fear of mortality? Indoctrination?

I don't know, it's a good question. I suspect that the set of all Miller-like scientists will contain some that would go one way and some that would go the other. Just like any other group, there will be variation. So what?

So, why isn't Miller a Muslim? Might geography have something to do with it? Does he really know why he's a Christian?

Those are the only ways to get definitive answers, maybe. But I don't see god coming out of the clouds to answer them, and I don't see science doing it either. Science cannot tell me if we are just a vast simulation being run by some other intelligence.

Perhaps, but science would also not give you cause to assume one, that you have to do all on your own.

So I look at all these philosophical questions and I know that I cannot KNOW the answers. I speculate because it is interesting. I don't make any leaps of faith, my mind doesn't work that way.

So, you make up questions that are for the most part irrelevant just so that you cannot know the answers.

Would you have thought about a computer simulated society before there were computers?

It does work that way for others. Fine. If they can do that and still accept/practice science, which is in a different realm, fine.

And continue to propagate the myths that have burdened mankind for centuries.

I have to disagree. I don't see that at all.

So, what exactly from nature do you perceive to give rise to such beliefs?

Why those physical laws and not others?

Do you mean laws that we cannot detect yet somehow\\\ influence the physical world?

No, they are guilty of cross-contamination between two realms that are not meant to overlap. And they are a far, far greater danger because they try to sell shit-science as real science. Miller et al. do not.

Why then does Miller need to believe in the exact thing that others use to sell shit-science? Perhaps he's not a Christian afterall?

 

[(Q)]

Not necessarily - maybe god doesn't know what each of us is going to do. I never said anything about omniscience.

You didn't have to say anything, by its very definition of religion is a belief in the supernatural that controls human destinies.

Why? What damnation? My hypothetical theist doesn't believe in that doctrine.

That would take away much of the reason for not worshiping gods, the fear of eternal damnation. I suppose I could give you that one, but it certainly does change the landscape for a belief system.

I agree with this up to the last couple words. I'd say it is an idea that can be reached only via philosophical musings. And moreover, that doesn't necessarily invalidate it, it simply means it is speculative and has no evidentiary support.

So, you can make up a philosophical question to be mulled via philosophical musings, and come to the conclusion its purely speculative. I thought that's what I said.

 

[(Q)]

I can't say what science can say, but I can say science is in its infancy.
Supreme beings and their detection would surely be beyond every human beings comprehension, we would not begin to know how to investigate, what to look for? Are we even biologically equipped to see it if indeed it can be seen? It could be outside the realm of our 5 senses.....

Exactly, giving us no reason whatsoever to speculate such a thing outside of our own imaginations and philosophical musings. Stirring, yet pointless.

 

[Lerxst]

Those are irrelevant questions that only serve to pamper mythical speculation. If the universe simply just IS, then asking the question 'why' is all but superficial.

Is it? All I know is that the "why" type questions come very naturally for me, and they occupy my mind often, and that this is true for others. I think it's entirely natural and normal to ask these questions and want answers.

My bad, I may have worded that incorrectly. Science may not actually conclude a purpose is not neccessary, but we as humans would not have been given reason to make such conclusions of purpose from science.

Agreed.

You don't seem to have too much "faith" in science.

I have plenty of faith in science to answer every question about the physical universe. I don't know if there is anything beyond that. I can certainly imagine scenarios where there are levels inaccesible to science. I understand that these musing may be nothing but that - musings. But I also understand that they are not all illogical. Science doesn't help with this stuff. That is why there is a study called philosophy, and why it is a different field from science.

The question to life, the universe and everything is in fact 42. In other words, it is what you make it.

I agree. I think it would be foolish to waste this life - I try not to do that myself. My "purpose" is an ever-evolving amalgamtion of ideas I have picked up from disparite sources. And I grant everyone else the right to do that for themselves, as long as they don't fuck up other people in the process.

What questions could the bible possibly answer that can't be answered from anywhere else?

Well, for some people it seems to offer quite a bit, I cannot really explain it myself, though. Let's just say the prospect of eternal life, forgiveness, etc.

It is if the scientists work reveals nothing about gods yet he goes on believing in such things. The scientist did not come to any conclusions in his professional work that gave rise to assuming gods, why then make gods part of his reality.

Science doesn't inform a scientists' choice of philosophy on questions outside of science. You can be a Platonist scientist, an Aristotelian scientist, a Kantian scientist, etc...

Wishful thinking? Fear of mortality? Indoctrination?

I'm sure that has to do with a lot of it, to be honest. I am sympathetic to certain religious ideas and I know this stems from my desire to not cease to be. I'll admit that up front.

So, why isn't Miller a Muslim? Might geography have something to do with it? Does he really know why he's a Christian?

I cannot say for certain, but I suspect you are correct in that it has had an influence. The geographical clumpiness of organized religion was one of the first things I noticed about it as a youngster that caused me to reject it.

So, you make up questions that are for the most part irrelevant just so that you cannot know the answers.

I don't "make them up" - they come to me uninvited. If only I could stop thinking about such questions.

Would you have thought about a computer simulated society before there were computers?

Not exactly. The Simulation Argument is relatively new, but the basic idea is as old as Plato, or at least as old as Descartes, if you think about it.

And continue to propagate the myths that have burdened mankind for centuries.

I'm fully aware that organized religion has generally had nothing but a bad effect, and I despise it accordingly. But I think that there are ideas that can be extracted from it and entertained in terms of personal private religious views that are not inherently "burdensome" on mankind.

So, what exactly from nature do you perceive to give rise to such beliefs?

I think the context of this question was that because science provides no evidence for anything supernatural, that is enough reason to reject it all. And I said that I didn't see it that way.

What gives rise to such beliefs, for me, is that they have a certain level of plausibility. It is plausible to me that we are possibly simulations, or that there is some kind of god(s), or that future humans will become something god-like, etc. That is the bedground, for me - plausibility. The reason why I personally entertain the ideas, although I don't actually have a belief in any of them, is because it addresses a deep anguish I have about simply being another finite organism in a universe that just IS. But that is just me.

Do you mean laws that we cannot detect yet somehow\\\ influence the physical world?

What I meant was - if one realizes Hawking's goal and find that the universe has it's properties because of one simple fundamental law or theory, it still leaves open the question "why that law" or "why does the law bother to exist"... etc. Every time science answers a question, it just creates another "why?"

Why then does Miller need to believe in the exact thing that others use to sell shit-science? Perhaps he's not a Christian afterall?

Oh, I think he is, he is just a very liberal one. Folks on this board don't seem to be very well acquainted with that rare breed, the liberal Christian.

I don't know why he is Christian, but he is. You think he is a hypocrite, I don't. Okay. But what next? Is it really in the interest of the secular community to try to villify him? He's on our side, you know.

 

[Lerxst]

You didn't have to say anything, by its very definition of religion is a belief in the supernatural that controls human destinies.

I'm no theolgian, but my understanding is most of them agree we have free will.

And if not, I don't care what 99% of believers think. I'm talking of personal religious ideas.

So, you can make up a philosophical question to be mulled via philosophical musings, and come to the conclusion its purely speculative. I thought that's what I said.

Personaly I think it is speculative. What the philosophical theist (strictly speaking, the fideist) does is goes a step further and makes a leap of faith - understanding that there is no evidence for it. That is not something I can personally do, my brain doesn't work that way. This is the only kind of path to religion that I think is viable. One would have to stress the primacy of faith because there is no other path to get you there.

 

[Vindicator]

... and as frustration continues to be vented, that there are religious scientists and there's nothing that can be done about it short of mass murder...

The question; "Why?"

If we look back at the philosophical roots of science we will see that science developed by asking just that.

If humanity had accepted that things "just are", there would be no science at present. Human curiosity demands that this question be asked: "Why?"

Science can only answer "How?" but its pursuit is certainly driven by that innate desire to know "Why?"

"How" delineates function, "Why" assigns purpose.

Humanity requires a purposeful existence. Science will never give it that - just a mechanistic one.

The interesting thing is that asking "Why?" immediately defaults to a Personal Cause.

How else can a purposeful existence come about?

 

[superluminal]

Right. So it's silly to insist on using the tools of science and only those tools in trying to address the question. They don't apply. That is why it isn't "hypocrisy" to to do science and yet hold certain kinds of beliefs that are part and parcel outside of science.

I don't feel that it is hypocrisy to do such a thing. Just silly. To hold a "belief" with no reason to do so is silly imo. It may be emotionally satisfying but that makes it no less silly.

 

[Lerxst]

I don't feel that it is hypocrisy to do such a thing. Just silly. To hold a "belief" with no reason to do so is silly imo. It may be emotionally satisfying but that makes it no less silly.

I understand your POV, superluminal. I share it in a personal sense, in that I cannot make myself hold such a belief. When I look at those who can, I really wonder how they do it. Do they ever look in the mirror and ask themselves "am I just fooling myself?" I would. Shit, I ask myself that just for being an agnostic.

Yet, I am sympathetic to the reasons for having a belief.

 

[superluminal]

I really wonder how they do it. Do they ever look in the mirror and ask themselves "am I just fooling myself?" I would. Shit, I ask myself that just for being an agnostic.

Well, I'm very cynical on this point. The vast majority of the population never even questions it. They live unexamined lives (again, just my opinion based on general observations).

For those who conscientiously hold these beliefs, I suspect that they do indeed ask themselves and find the answer unacceptable. Very quickly they stop asking and it becomes self evident that their belief has to be true in order to maintain their sense of comfort and sanity.

Pretty cynical, like I said.

Yet, I am sympathetic to the reasons for having a belief.

I too fully understand the wish for there to be a continuation of our consciousness after death. It has become a non-issue with me personally as I truly feel that oblivion is our destiny and I have no problem with that.

 

[ghost7584]

What is the problem that religious people have with science?

The religious believers with whom I am familiar seem to be anti-science. The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Not everything that is called science is really science.
False science, (theories in error not proven experimentally) sometimes oppose the truth of the Bible. So Christians are instructed to avoid such false science that is in error.
Isaac Newton and George Washington Carver were Christian believers and scientists. -- They practiced real science.

Example of false science: Evolution. In spite of many thousands of missing transitional forms, not found in the fossil record, the false theory of evolution is still taught.

 

[Spectrum]

The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Do you understand science?? Science is based upon the senses (the words are closely linked) and the senses cannot explain everything. For example for all we know there could be a sixth sense.

Example of false science: Evolution. In spite of many thousands of missing transitional forms, not found in the fossil record, the false theory of evolution is still taught.

Originally the teaching of evolution was banned, and rightly so (in my opinion).

 

[Mythbuster]

I realy wonder why those theists join a science forum. They know they would get ther ass kicked by atheists. I think they are trolling us.

Agent smiths.

 

[Arete]

What is the problem that religious people have with science?

I would't go that far to say religious people have a problem with science. They just feel threatened by it. Relgion has alot of tradiion rooted in it, and people feel scared to adjust to new ways. With science advancing everyday it goes to show you how beautiful the human mind really is. And I, being somewhat religious am thankful that God gave man the ability to do such incredible feats. So religious people should stop looking at science as a way to disprove their beliefs but a way to make the world a better place, and thats what both science and religion were created to do. Thats my opinion.