Science must destroy religion

[cliffy1]

Pure science should be completely neutral on the subject of the existence of God (or lack thereof) since there is no proving either position and probably never will be by scientific methods.

However, I get what you're saying, to some it seems that it has become a sort of religion.

Much of science has gone to the highest bidder and many work for corporations and slant their findings to suit their employer. Also, many treat "scientific fact" rather dogmatically. It's sometimes hard to differentiate fact from "selective evidence" from fiction. Like anything else, a pound of salt goes a long way in weighing the truth.

[JLives]

Pure science should be completely neutral on the subject of the existence of God (or lack thereof) since there is no proving either position and probably never will be by scientific methods.

However, I get what you're saying, to some it seems that it has become a sort of religion.

Science IS neutral. Why should the existence of a god get a pass when it comes to proving a negative, which can obviously never be done? We're talking science, not philosophy. There is more scientific evidence that we exist in a hologram then there is that a deity exists or has ever existed.

[maryjane48]

I like Sam Harris. He's smart, honest, knowledgeable, but I think he has a few assumptions around topics of free-will and religion that aren't quite right. He wrongly assumes that science and religion are at odds with each other even though modern science stems from religious thought. There are many different religious and many different religious viewpoints within each religion so of course you're going to find some religious people who conflict with the science of the day, just as you will among non-religious people among whom you also find many diverging views of science and reality.

Destroying religion will not further the advancement of science any more than criminalizing marijuana eliminates crime.

um in what universe did science spring from views on man made gods ?

[OREZ]

Science IS neutral. Why should the existence of a god get a pass when it comes to proving a negative, which can obviously never be done? We're talking science, not philosophy.

I can't figure out if we agree or disagree.

In the context of this discussion, why should science destroy religion if it is neutral? Why should science wander out of it's field into philosophy where it inevitably gets bogged down with endless and, I think, pointless debate when it has so much else to do?

I'm not a religious person (sure as heck not the way I define religion anyway) so I have no interest in defending organized religion. What I can say with a feeling of certainty though is that science will never destroy religion, it's a complete waste of effort.

[maryjane48]

An old saying has it that you should never discuss religion or politics in polite company. There's a reason for the sentiment: things get hot in a hurry.

Two things I see happening in the religious threads: 1) one-liner childish schoolyard taunts that are pointless and disruptive, and 2) certain members who seem to have an insta-mantra that they whip out and use in every single thread.

I want the threads to be clear of the above. Religious issues need to be discussed in reasonable debate-like style. Make your point, don't make it an attack, and stop with the nonsensical one-liners (the latter will be deleted without comment).

To all: You hold the solution in hand: the Report Button. Use the feature judiciously, but do use it.

[OREZ]

it w9nt destroy the weak minded who just have to believe in some type of fake god . but what science will do is prove how the universe works and how it began .

Weak minded? I want to see your credentials which give you the authority to say that about the many people of faith who hold multiple Doctorates. Too bad you can't seem to say anything in these discussions without beginning or ending with some misguided, childish insult.

Science, on a very foundational level, owes a great deal to people of faith, as has already been pointed out, and just because you are in denial of that historical fact means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Science and faith need not be at war with each other and in the past never were but people like you are determined to see it that way because you're not really as interested in facts as you claim and are much are much more interested in whatever supports your own world view. Very much like ultra-religious people.

[Gixxer]

[JayByrd]

The critical flaw of every question in this is that it demands that I apply human logic to divine acts (or their absence). If I can't explain something that is, by nature, beyond my comprehension, then how can it be real?

My four year old son couldn't explain what I do for a living, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a job. He doesn't understand things like that, or the reasons behind various things I do, because as an adult I'm operating on another level than he is. Just like God operates on a level beyond my understanding. I can accept that. I can accept that I don't have all the answers, and I can accept that my assumptions about the nature of things may be incorrect. I've never understood Atheism to allow that kind of doubt, yet an Atheist will say that he's a free thinker and I'm not.

Human understanding is not the height of intelligence in the universe. Human suffering is not the most profound thing in all existence. God does things that don't make sense. God allows suffering and terribleness. Despite God's love for humanity, he can be a real *bleep* sometimes. There's nothing forbidding people of faith from feeling this way. My son gets mad at me too, and that's allowed.

Atheism is about having all the answers. Christianity isn't. We never agree because we're not asking the same question, or seeking the same answer.

I'm sure I'll be told I'm a sheep, blindly following whatever. That there's no evidence supporting the things I believe. The evidence has been made plain to me, so I believe as I do. Your mileage may vary.

And one thing I am intelligent enough to perceive is when I'm being manipulated. The whole "you're educated, you understand how the world works" is garbage. You'd get canned in first year English for arguing like that. Gixxer, I'm surprised that attitude got past your filter.

[Farmmaa]

Really JayByrd ?

Atheist are the ones who think they have all the answers and refuse to admit that they could be wrong ???

Although I have met many religious folks who feel that their way of thinking is the only one true way to think about the world, I have yet to meet an atheist who is evenly remotely positive on how the world began or who professes to have answers to all of life's mysteries.

That's not what atheism is or how it works.
It is not a structured belief system. Atheists do not all share the same views on science, physics, anthropology, history, astronomy or paleontology. Atheists do not all share the same core beliefs on morality, family, politics or education.

Atheist all share ONE core belief - and that is simply the lack of belief in some sort of supernatural, omnipresent deity.
That is where the similarities end.

[JLives]

Have you read any of the posts by atheists on this board JayByrd? We don't believe in a god becasue there is no evidence of the possibility of one. For things that we have evidence for but don't understand we say "I don't know." The origin of matter would be a good example of that. We know matter exists but we don't know how it came to be. Your son may not understand your job but I'm sure he knows that you have one. We are people who question things and we most certainly don't claim to have all of the answers.

[whatwhat]

Human understanding is not the height of intelligence in the universe. Human suffering is not the most profound thing in all existence. God does things that don't make sense. God allows suffering and terribleness. Despite God's love for humanity, he can be a real *bleep* sometimes. There's nothing forbidding people of faith from feeling this way. My son gets mad at me too, and that's allowed.

Atheism is about having all the answers. Christianity isn't. We never agree because we're not asking the same question, or seeking the same answer.

I'm sure I'll be told I'm a sheep, blindly following whatever. That there's no evidence supporting the things I believe. The evidence has been made plain to me, so I believe as I do. Your mileage may vary.

And one thing I am intelligent enough to perceive is when I'm being manipulated. The whole "you're educated, you understand how the world works" is garbage. You'd get canned in first year English for arguing like that. Gixxer, I'm surprised that attitude got past your filter.

I agree that, as humans, we just don't have the intelligence to know if there is a higher power, or what happens after we die. I agree that we don't know all the answers, and we probably won't know until we cross over (or not cross over if that is what happens). And because of that fact, I am an atheist and you are a believer.

You assume that atheists "know" all the answers but most of us don't. Just like with every belief system there are people who act like they know all the answers (atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc). You shouldn't just lump every single person under the same umbrella.

[Ptolemy Soter]

"The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." - Socrates

Plenty of atheists (and many in other persuasions) are willing to accept just that.

However, when it comes to some things, it doesn't hurt to try it out. For example, I'd have never discovered the power of meditation if I remained the sort who needs every little thing proven to me. There are few (if any) better ways to get over addictions and bad habits, quiet the mind, treat depression, and become high without negative side-effects, among other things.

[Gixxer]

JayByrd your son probably still believes in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny right?

What if your 4 year old son was diagnosed with cancer, would pray to god to save your son? What if god didn't answer your prayers and died a long painful death. Would you accept gods decision on this or would you question it?

[OREZ]

Although I have met many religious folks who feel that their way of thinking is the only one true way to think about the world, I have yet to meet an atheist who is evenly remotely positive on how the world began or who professes to have answers to all of life's mysteries.

Personally, I never trust anyone who is 100% convinced that their way of thinking is the only one, true way. I'm not alone among believers in having many questions to which I simply say, "I don't know." I'd like to know, but I'm alright with not knowing too, for the time being, or for the rest of my life if that's how it turns out.

That's not what atheism is or how it works.
It is not a structured belief system. Atheists do not all share the same views on science, physics, anthropology, history, astronomy or paleontology. Atheists do not all share the same core beliefs on morality, family, politics or education.

People of faith certainly don't all share the same views on those topics either. That's pretty clear.

Atheist all share ONE core belief - and that is simply the lack of belief in some sort of supernatural, omnipresent deity.
That is where the similarities end.

My observation is that some atheists simply have a lack of belief because they feel they have lack of evidence and I'm fine with that. However, some atheists do seem to have a belief system which causes them to seek out, mock and belittle anyone of faith. They're just not alright with anyone one who has a view which contradicts their own which absolutely insists that there is no God.

Simply lacking faith or belief would not compel someone to actively (and sometimes obsessively) pursue this course, in my opinion. If a person does not believe in something for which they feel they have no evidence they would just leave it at that instead of feeling that they're obligated to go on some sort of mission to eradicate the world of it.

[JayByrd]

What if your 4 year old son was diagnosed with cancer, would pray to god to save your son? What if god didn't answer your prayers and died a long painful death. Would you accept gods decision on this or would you question it?

Yes, I'd question it. I'm sure my belief in a purpose behind suffering would be strained. God allows suffering in this world, I already know this, and I know that my life has not been, and won't be, immune to it. I might well curse God for allowing me to suffer in that way. According to the Bible, Christ himself asked God why he'd been forsaken, while he was on the cross. I would absolutely question what the point of this suffering was.