Does science make belief in God obsolete?

[Bill Glasheen]

I've found myself coming back on a spiral in life - but not a full circle.

I was once a devout Catholic, and altar boy who did mass sometimes 7 days a week to serve the local church, and did 7 years time in parochial school. But religion began getting in the way of science for me because ... most of the nuns were idiots on science.

I didn't come back full circle to devout belief. However as I have lived life and am now raising two boys, I value the Golden Rule and the sense of humility that I got from that Judeo-Christian training. I find it not surprising at all now that I gravitate to having Catholics and Jews as friends, and find a degree of comfort around some devout Muslims. I "get" what they are about.

I am just totally ambivalent to the concept of a God. If he's there, cool. If not... cool. It really won't change how I live now. I don't need to fear a God to live by a Golden Rule, and that really is the ultimate goal of Judeo-Christian training.

I swore I'd never, ever subject my kids to parochial school. I had so many "issues" that I had to work through because of all that guilt schit. But by chance, opportunity, and networking, I ended up having one boy go to an "Episcopalian lite" school, and another to a parochial school. As the older is now in a secular private school, I now totally get the value of the spiritual dimension of a young man's personal development. I could tell you stories...



- Bill

[mhosea]

I guess I qualify as a scientist, 3 graduate degrees in mathematical sciences and elected full member of Sigma Xi. Speaking of which, I remember reading the following article

http://www.americanscientist.org/templa ... etid/55593

during a Girl Scout bridging ceremony (bad daddy!).

Anyway, I haven't personally abandoned the faith of my youth, but the truth is that I no longer trust the old men who make careers out of religion telling me that this is the way it is, or I ought to be doing this or that. I especially distrust the point of view that portrays me right and billions of other people wrong (and vice versa, actually ). From an objective point of view, the universe would be a lot more comprehensible if nothing existed at all. Given (for the sake of argument) that it does exist, questions arise. I figure the ultimate reality for me is that the image of the universe that fits in my neural net is mostly fantasy whether it's based on science or not. To the extent that mere skepticism explains the decline of religious faith among scientists, et alia., I can identify, but I think it frequently goes beyond that. Educated or not, human nature still applies, whether you see it as created or evolved, and regardless of what you believe, you will tend to behave and think like a human. Apparently that includes constructing a framework of beliefs that even science can't fully support. To view this as a bad thing is to fall into the same guilt trap that religions fall into. Our fantasies make us functional. To the extent that they coincide with anything resembling objective truth, so much the better.

Enough rambling out of me...

[Gene DeMambro]

I found my parochial school education to be head and shoulders above what my public school friends were getting at the same time. When my family moved to another state and I was enrolled in the local public school for two years running I was the only student who was reading at grade level. In fact, during reading I was placed in the next highest grade level, and went to their class. And I credit my great experience in parochial in fostering a love of learning - especially in science - that continues to this day. I just can't say enough good things about the experience.

I have not abandoned my faith. But maybe I was lucky. I never had old men and old women telling me, "believe this or burn in hell". I was treated kindly, compasionately, with dignity and respect by everyone in all the churches I ever worshipped in. They concentrated on the gifts God has given, and how to use those gifts for goodness, and to strive for spiritual (there's that word again) and personal excellence. I never had the hellfire and brimstone preacher. And no person I ever encountered in the Church ever spoke as single bad word about scientific discovery.

Gene

[IJ]

Naw, don't miss Boston, though the marriage business is best of the nation, obviously. I didn't really mean Boston when I said religious figures would be performing marriages for a long time. I'm just saying that the entire middle east will still be drive by religion, for one example.

The whole issue of "is religion a problem" comes up often for atheists. I think there is some religion which is not inconsistent with social progress, and it seems to be the kind discussed on this thread--a sort of awe, appreciation, agnosticism, and aspiration to do-goodism.

However, a fair amount of mainstream religion is directly opposed to rationality. Just look at how religion has affected the teaching of science in the classrooms of the USA--constant battle. Depending on the religion, adherents may be actively encouraged not to know things. No one writing in was counseled in parochial school not to investigate electrical phenomena because they're manifestations of God. However, if you are a "good" adherent to most religions you're supposed to accept the teachings without question (on faith) and that is the kind of attitude that stifles discovery and got Galileo a criminal trial. Many to most to (per Dawkins) all of religion's claims are testable, and if people habitually give up their curiosity to investigate and learn in favor of rules dictated by the Pope or inscribed in ancient texts, well, that attitude scares me.

Of course, I also stayed away from football games because I don't like the "feel" of a large crowd thinking and reacting en masse. It reminds me of the ability of dictators to convince whole nations to do horrible things. Groupthink (should we say groupnonthink?) is not required to be religious, but it certainly comes up a lot. There is also a lot of nonreligious groupnonthink, and that's just as scary. Many good things that come of religion (say, quality schooling, or habitat for humanity, or a homeless shelter) don't require a speck of religion to be formed or to function--but religion has long been an organizing force of motivated and moral do-gooders. I'm not sure that there is an adequate Goodwill to replace every Salvation Army if religion vanished. Hmm.

I have a separate problem with Christianity, which is that I fail to see how someone else can take the fall for someone's sins. People should be responsible. You can't let someone else get punished in your place--that doesn't make sense. Besides, the only reason for punishment is God's will / retribution. It would be a lot simpler and less painful for his kid if he just said, "hey, if you admit your faults and devote yourself to me, I'll forgive you." Where is the need for torture? To me this speaks of group control through guilt. Isn't there enough motivation in threats of eternal stewing in boiling sulfur, unsubstantiated as they may be?

...

Sagan was asked about the presence of a God, and whether he believed, and his famous answer was, "I don't want to believe, I want to know."

[TSDguy]

I'm just saying that the entire middle east will still be drive by religion, for one example.

I still stand by my hundred years prediction. The violence in Iraq and Palestine and what not is inspiring young people to completely abandon religion and the clerics that want death in the name of religion. Add in some western culture and education and religion goes away. There are some obvious examples of people revolting against fundamentalism in the middle east, and that's the first step towards abolishing the entire system. Or just jumping straight to atheism, like in Iraq.

[Gene DeMambro]

However, if you are a "good" adherent to most religions you're supposed to accept the teachings without question (on faith) and that is the kind of attitude that stifles discovery and got Galileo a criminal trial.

Not quite. Look at the article I posted about the belief in aliens. This was said by a prominent member of the Vatican. The man who said it is:

• An ordained priest
• A member of the Jesuit order
• An Astronomer

You will find pius - of all faiths - in science and medicine. Whenever a claim reaches the Vatican of a miracle attributed the intercession of a blessed or a sant, the Vatican finds a practicing Catholic doctor, who then analyzes the report. "Believe or die" MIGHT apply to those faiths ruled by ignorance or fear, but not others who truly seek enlightenment. And it certainly does not apply to the Church that I belong to.

Cheers,
Gene

[Gene DeMambro]

Here's the expanded article from the other day:

Jesuit astronomer: Belief in aliens is not heresy
God's creative freedom is unlimited, he says

By ARIEL DAVID
The Associated Press

May 14, 2008 - 7:04 am

Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican's chief astronomer said in an interview published yesterday.

The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted as saying the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.

"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said. "Just as we consider earthly creatures as a 'brother' and 'sister,' why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation."

In the interview by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Funes said that such a notion "doesn't contradict our faith," because aliens would still be God's creatures. Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom, he said.

The interview, headlined "The extraterrestrial is my brother," covered a variety of topics, including the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science and the theological implications of the existence of alien life.

Funes said science, especially astronomy, does not contradict religion, touching on a theme of Pope Benedict XVI, who has made exploring the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.

The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.

He said he continues to believe that "God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the result of chance."

Funes urged the church and the scientific community to leave behind divisions caused by Galileo's persecution 400 years ago, saying the incident has "caused wounds."

In 1633, the astronomer was tried as a heretic and forced to recant his theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

"The church has somehow recognized its mistakes," he said. "Maybe it could have done it better, but now it's time to heal those wounds, and this can be done through calm dialogue and collaboration."

Pope John Paul declared in 1992 that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

The Vatican Observatory has been at the forefront of efforts to bridge the gap between religion and science.

Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research, and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.

[Gene DeMambro]

Funes said science, especially astronomy, does not contradict religion, touching on a theme of Pope Benedict XVI, who has made exploring the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.

The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.

If anything still thinks that the pursuit of science and the belief in God are mutual exclusive, please find a person as highly placed as Fr. Funes currently to support your position.

Cheers,
Gene

[2Green]

I don't believe that science makes religion obsolete.

That premise is based on the assumption that both disciplines are attempting to ascertain the same ultimate truth: they are not.

Religion asks "why", Science asks "how".

You cannot look to science for answers to philosophical questions such as " why are we here?", and you cannot ask religion such scientific questions as " where do the new atoms come from in an expanding universe?"

It's extremely clear to even the casual observer that we live in an ordered world, as we percieve it.
No one can account for this order AT ITS SOURCE, because no-one can say what the source actually is: not religion, not Science.

Stephen Hawking hit it right on the head when he posed:"why is there a Universe at all?"

Religion may have started out as a way of "explaining" scientific things ( lightning means the gods are angry), but eventually I think it became a spiritual discipline with very different goals than empirical science, which was essentially a catalogueing of causes and effects.

Religion addresses spiritual phenomonae: science, empirical phenomonae: however, the nasty can of worms called "morals" now rears its head.
True science cannot have morals, as they impede discovery and research.
Religion imposes morals, many of which resonate with humans already -- such as " you can't dissect live human babies for research".

You have moralistic humans attempting to conduct dispassionate "science" as if we are NOT human, and so this conflict arises;we think of morals as being a "religious" aspect, and so, "opposed" to science research.
------------------------------------------------

Having said all that, I believe that ultimately there is one truth, and it is not relative. That is to say, whatever you believe, you are either correct or incorrect.
If both science and religion were actually quests for the truth, they would both lead to the same conclusion.

However, there is a great and enduring bitterness over the FACT that scientific progress was greatly hampered by religious powers and their superstitious beliefs in times past: this very point is one of the REASONS for the so-called "religion-vs.-science" divide.

------------------------------------------------

In China, today, in the wake of the incredible disaster, while rescue workers were using every technology available to the developing world to reclaim victims, people were were reciting verses and burning incense to ( I quote) "ward off evil spirits."

That, my friends, is the world we STILL live in.

~N~

[IJ]

"If anything still thinks that the pursuit of science and the belief in God are mutual exclusive, please find a person as highly placed as Fr. Funes currently to support your position."

The issue isn't whethere religion and belief in God CAN somehow coexist. The issue is the predominant nature of their relationship. Take for example, the large chunk of America that believes in creationism and biblical literalism because they are told to do so on faith. Here, religion is directly impairing scientific learning. Believe it or not, there was a young woman in my college anatomy class (of 300 probably) who thought men had one fewer rib--and argued the point! As if referring to some tangible evidence weren't a better solution.

If one says that yeah, i'm Catholic and believe in the big bang... and also I believe in evolution... and a 4 billion year old age of the earth.... and the miracle of the wine and fishes was about Jesus getting his audience to share what they had... and the resurrection was a metaphor... eventually you run into direct opposition to church doctrine and at that point the belief in God becomes a vague mysticism in the background of a scientist's beliefs. If Religion doesn't ask you to take something of faith, and let's you form opinions on the evidence, what defines it as religion anymore? Religion has become literature and fable. Certainly there are faiths that increasingly bend what used to be hard and fast rules, but perhaps that's not a change in religion but a gradual atheisization of society. You can bet your butt that the women and children in that Texan ultra Mormon hive weren't encouraged to make their own opinions about whether Smith dictated the book of mormon from golden tablets with a seeing stone, or whether Jesus walked in the midwest.

"Religion asks "why", Science asks "how""

Somehow in grave social issues religious figures are always consulted, sometimes to the exclusion or underrepresentation of secular humanist thought. Just as often, and certainly more often in the rest of the west, the statement is,

"Philosophy and the social sciences ask why, science asks how."

"You cannot look to science for answers to philosophical questions such as " why are we here?", and you cannot ask religion such scientific questions as " where do the new atoms come from in an expanding universe?""

Depends on the question. Science can't say for sure what our purpose is because that's a matter of opinion and not fact. That doesn't mean religion can offer any more security in the reply, or that social sciences don't offer a better solution. For example, Jesus's economy would probably be communist and sharing. Secular experience has been that capitalism (plus charity) provides better for the masses. Doesn't that tell us something about why we're here--or at least how to take care of each other? And we CAN ask religion where atoms come from. Unfortunately, the hypotheses aren't testable, being limited to, "made by a supernatural creator without the necessity for any evidence of the process of creation."

"It's extremely clear to even the casual observer that we live in an ordered world."

Sorry, not to me... can you elaborate on what you mean by ordered?

"True science cannot have morals, as they impede discovery and research."

I'm not sure where it's written that pure science is amoral. Is modern biomedical research, approved by institutional review boards, designed to improve the health of the population, overseen for safety, not "real" science, and if not, why not?

[Glenn]

Science and religion have some of the same big questions, although religion rarely asks them. Christianity for example begins time with the Christian God creating our universe, science begins time with the Big Bang creating our universe. However while science asks (and is attempting to answer) what was before the Big Bang and what created the Big Bang, any given religion avoids the concept that something could have come before its believed creator or created its creator. Christians really do not have a concept at all for where God came from or what may have created God. These concepts are completely absent largely because the Bible does not touch the subject, and the implications of such questions are too uncomfortable. These questions are just as relevant as what created the Big Bang though.

[mhosea]

If Religion doesn't ask you to take something of faith, and let's you form opinions on the evidence, what defines it as religion anymore?

The word "something" is key. What defines a religion is a core set of axioms. These are the load-bearing structure around which an elaborate system of beliefs can be constructed. If it is determined at some point that some belief is contradicted by scientific study, or if the guys with funny hats just decide to change their minds, then all is well as long as it doesn't undermine any of the core axioms. The offending part of the structure can be amended. The problem that literalists have is that they include Biblical literalism in their core set of axioms, and that doesn't give them enough wiggle room when it comes to evolution. That's why they fight tooth and nail against it, etc., because they've staked the stability of their entire belief system on that axiom, whereas for the Catholic church it is just a peripheral matter, and any offending structure was simply removed long ago, making it easy for Catholics to accept the verdict of science, if they are so inclined. It has not always been so, of course, but nowadays, that's the plan with any scientifically testable statement you might make about the physical universe.

[Stryke]

Science requires faith

Absolutes are a tricky buisness

[TSDguy]

If you mean science requires faith in laws it's set forth, the laws of physics and such, I disagree. We have laws because they accurately predict results and we've never found anything to contradict them (sort of). If and when we do, they will be amended. Take the gap between super small and super large scale physics. Einstein's ideas don't work at the quantum level, so we're still refining how we predict what will happen to X when it does Y. Newtonian physics accurately predict results, but we amended that when we found some new data.

[Valkenar]

Science requires faith in one's own senses. Faith that your eyes aren't deceiving you. In practice it also requires trust (which is different from faith) that those who practice science on your behalf aren't just lying to you. But that's very different from the sort of faith religion requires. Science basically promises "If you perform this experiment, you will get these results." or "Here is some accurate data that supports a hypothesis." It doesn't ask you to take anything on faith other than trusting that everyone who has repeated the experiment is telling the truth about the result.

Religion promises no verifiability, and that's a huge difference. If there is verifiability, then it's not faith. By definition, faith is a belief not based on proof.