Slashdot Mirror

Well, it really does depend how far you want to go in defining religion. If you mean that a religion is simply and merely a belief in a higher being (theism), then sure, science and religion are compatible. If you mean that religion is a complex set of doctrines and social and moral rules that may or may not be orthagonal to the belief in a higher being, then you may run into some incompatibilities.

No, if you seriously believe that a higher being created the universe and is somehow watching over mankind, that is not compatible with a belief in science and rational, testable explanations of reality.

If you choose to limit your theism to some being starting the Big Bang and then retiring from the universe, that is unprovable and essentially as meaningless as saying that a pink unicorn created the world by blowing fairy kisses at a snowflake.

And then there's others of us who followed the opposite path from atheism/agnosticism to being some sort of theist. In that boat, I can say that it's going to take a whole lot more than anything science has shown me thus far to change my mind. The only thing for me is that I actually believe that science and faith can and should live harmoniously; I'm not the type to discredit evolution, etc. just because it doesn't match some interpretation of the bible that I've been told all my life (actually, it matches my interpretation of the bible just fine, because I don't understand how the two have to conflict at all unless you want to think that your interpretations of said writings are infallible, which of course is what a lot of christians do under the guise of calling the bible infallible). The history of Christianity is dark, but a lot of Christianity for a long time now has been nothing but one blind man driving a bus full of other blind men around. As a believer myself, I have a lot of anger about this. I have spent most of my life in which I've believed not going to church, specifically because of this--I'm not blind any more, I can drive myself where I need to go without a blind guy driving me off of a cliff.

I see the argument of religion vs. evolution to be stupid. Religion vs. atheism doesn't even make sense when talking to most christians. Religion is an institution (at their core, I would say that they are philosophies, but Christianity is specifically guilty of losing any of that philosophy to the institution, which is inherently corrupt and bogus--it's not even about the philosophy any more, it's about having control and power over people). Talking theism vs. atheism makes a lot of sense. Intelligent Design/Creationism vs. Evolution makes sense to a certain point (at a certain point, Intelligent Design and Creationism also try to explain things that have nothing to do with evolution), but Religion always gets dragged into it. That's stupid (why the hell is Noah always brought into it... that specifically seems like such a completely unrelated topic that I've never been able to understand why creationists tout it and evolutionists even entertain them about it).

There's also schools of thought that evolution, etc. can fit securely into a theist's (even christian) mind as well, though that's really a different point than the one I'm trying to make.

Atheism is simply a label just like theism, except it means lack of belief in any God or gods. There is nothing else which defines an atheist. An atheist can believe absolutely anything and do absolutely anything and still be an atheist as long as they lack belief in any deity. That is the sole meaning of the word. Same goes with theism. All that defines a theist is that they believe in some God or gods.

Now as for religious debate, if you don't like it, stay away. Don't try and tell the rest of us what to discuss. It's really annoying when somebody jumps up and down, yelling about how they can't stand a certain topic being discussed. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. Your anecdote was just an anecdote of somebody trolling, which could have been any topic.

Which is fine if all you want is to prove that the question of whether or not there is something outside the universe is fundamentally unanswerable. That is pure metaphysics - and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on how our universe works, that is, how the system itself operates.

But that is totally unlike any form of extant religion. It's more minimalist than even the most restricted forms of Deism. Catholicism, just as an example for the religion that the theologian in this case supports, requires far more extensive assumptions about the universe, assumptions which are much more subject to investigation and disproof.

I agree that pure metaphysical theism cannot be disproved (and pure metaphysical atheism likewise), but actual religions are a lot more concrete and specific in their claims.

When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.

If a scientist gives equal weight to the lack of proof of god's existence, and the lack of proof that there is no god, then he is rather sloppily disregarding probabilities. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if no evidence can be found despite our best efforts, one may safely proceed on the premise that the claim is false even if you cannot conclusively disprove it.

A person's opinions as to what the weighting of the two probabilities are and what constitutes extraordinary are subjective, highly dependent upon culture, etc. The simple truth is that both theism and atheism require faith in the face of a lack of evidence. Faith in the face of a lack of evidence is not very scientific. Agnosticism is a position of logic based upon a lack of evidence. Logic is more characteristic of science. I think the case can be made that agnosticism is the more scientific.

When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.

Because they know ...

Article of faith #1.

... the guy asking the question will react irrationally to any reasonable answer. The scientific answer is - obviously not, ...

Article of faith #2.

... there is no evidence whatsoever for anything like that.

Both theism and *atheism* require faith in the face of a lack of evidence. Faith in the face of a lack of evidence is not very scientific.

Once you refuse to dismiss outlandish, untestable ideas because there is no evidence against them ...

Agnosticism is a position of logic based upon a lack of evidence. Logic is more characteristic of science.

... you may as well start giving the benefit of the doubt to Nigerian email scams.

And that's just a straw man, and not a very good one at that. There is no benefit of the doubt when the opinion is I don't know. Both theism and atheism are systems where one gives the benefit of the doubt, they merely differ in the boolean state assumed to be correct.

Well, it really does depend how far you want to go in defining religion. If you mean that a religion is simply and merely a belief in a higher being (theism), then sure, science and religion are compatible. If you mean that religion is a complex set of doctrines and social and moral rules that may or may not be orthagonal to the belief in a higher being, then you may run into some incompatibilities.

That's all too vague, and not what I asked for. I asked for predictions, of the future.

Okay, to be clear on what you want, "testability" in a scientific sense isn't sufficient? Because in no way is "predictions, of the future" an essential criterion of a scientific test.

For a "test", that will definitively fall out in a quantifiable sense when we are able to specify the specific set of mutations required for a particular biological feature, apply it across the population size that could have a pre-existing state of, or lack of, that feature, and specify the probability of this occurring as a question of what is ultimately chemistry, across the range of biological features that are proposably "Irreducibly Complex". Not by general conjecture as to how it might have formed, but by calculation of what happened and what could have happened with reasonable probability over the population and timeframe. That is, by hard, quantifiable brute-force calculation of the probability necessary changes on the level of chemistry.

As for epidemiology, as we are differentiating natural viruses from designed ones, the implications of an instance being one or the other would be tremendous. It's the difference between concluding the common cold is going around versus that we are probably being attacked by a biological weapon.

That's an assertion with absolutely no proof behind it. Please provide some. So far you haven't.

Although, of course, asking for "proof" in a scientific context is almost never appropriate, I feel confident this actually suffices as that for our purposes:

Fluorescent cats.

There are many, many such equivalent examples, but this one seems particularly... obvious. This biological feature is only explainable as design--because it was factually designed. If you want to modify your stance against design to say "design is not a reasonable explanation for the range of biological features we observe, other than recently, in which case it's plain fact instead", then please do so. Right now you have a universal dismissal of design, which cannot be rendered as a universal statement of biology that remains in any sense "science". That design isn't a factor -previously-, the possibility that remains open, I suppose yields to your psychic powers that no equivalent case of design to what you now have a picture of, before the 20'th century, will ever be identified. Additionally, if you mean you are unconcerned about the scientific question of design, and only care about rejecting theism as your motivation (such that "Intelligent Design" means "design by God", even though it doesn't), please stipulate that too.

That we can replicate is given -- if we didn't, then we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

Replicate--intelligence, technologically or by other means. Which we can't, and we are not "close". That claim's been around since the 40's, and in fact, we're still "20 years away", until another 20 years go by, when we'll again be "just 20 years away". I did not mean "reproduction" in a having-offspring sense.

I would find design a lot more believeable if humans were without misfeatures and vestigial organs. No things like wisdom teeth

Okay, well since you're bringing it up again, with respect to this and the appendix, current scientific consensus is these absolutely did had a purpose, on the basis of our earlier diet, chewing and digestion of it, with the fact dentists were not always available to replace the teeth before migration of the wisdom teeth in the jaw would handle it. Obviously, a "good design" would include functionality over the range of time it needed to be functional, and not only right-this-moment, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. I also don't see how it is a requirement that there are no health problems--that people would be designed to be physically immortal if they were designed a

Precisely the same basic line of reasoning, with the addition of noting theists never (okay, rarely) make such an argument. Atheists just claim they do, to misrepresent theism and trot out their own stock answer to a erroneous rendering of the argument with a stock "scam" of their own--you know, the one that actually occurs ad-nauseam in real life.

I was going to leave it at my previous post, but since you went there...

And, yes, betting on a stock with a huge upside and no downside is still the rational choice, and note I've said nothing about knowing what the stock will do as an issue of fact about the future.

That's anti-theism, not Atheism.

No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists as a way to denigrate religion and make it seem as if atheism is supported by science.

You are making a very, very broad judgement. The affirmation that the conflict is created by atheists is a statement almost impossible to disprove, and you want it to be correct. However, it's almost impossible to prove as well - one or even fifty examples don't prove it, it just gives evidence. There's also a virtually countless amount of evidence that says the opposite - that theists create the conflict. What matters is which evidence you look for (and want to believe), and how much time you spend looking.

make it seem as if atheism is supported by science

You don't understand theism and atheism then. Your fault, not your dreaded atheists. Atheism isn't supported by anything. It is simply the lack of theism - the lack of belief doesn't require proof/support/evidence. The scientific method starts at nothing, and then uses evidence and tests to find answers. The scientific method can't prove atheism, it can only disprove various tenants of theistic affirmations.

For example, the scientific method may disprove tenants of the Christian Bible such as the statement that the Earth is ~6000 years old, but the scientific method can never discover how existence was made into being. So even if the scientific method leads to evidence that the Big Bang occurred, it cannot answer the question of "How the Universe and all matter was created in the first place". Another way of putting that in a theistic mindset would be, "If God created the Universe, then who created God?".

The only people that believe science and religion are fundamentally in conflict are religious fundamentalists and the militant positivists you find here on Slashdot. For *everyone else* (as the study shows) they coexist in harmony.

That's because "everyone else" lives a totally unexamined life (in the Socratian sense). Therefore, they have no problem in believing in two utterly mutally contradictory principles (i.e. - the Big Bang vs. "Yahweh created the heavens and the earth in seven days" or human evolution vs. Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden) because they simply don't think about the contradictions.

Please note: belief in God, whatever form it might take, is a distinctly separate thing from adherence to a religion. Theism, per se, is not incompatible with science, because science has not disproved the existence of a Prime Mover (infinitely recursive issues aside), nor the existence of some variation on a Universal/Multiversal Overmind, or any other non-religoius variation on the theme of God. Religion, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs (usually founded - at least in the Western world - on some sort of scriptural basis), with a doctrinal basis. Religions demand their practitioners profess adherence to their particular set of beliefs (although Unitarian Universalists are a somewhat singular exception to that rule), and accept their church's doctrinal dogma.

Personally, I call myself a gnostic pantheist, for lack of a better term. But, because I'm the only one who adheres to my beliefs, because there's no scriptural basis for my beliefs, and because my beliefs have yet to generate any formal doctrine (although, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit to admiring the Golden Rule), you can't really call my belief system a religion. And, I might add, my belief system, at least thus far, is totally compatible with science as a system of thought, and with every scientific discovery of which I'm aware. (And, if it were not, it'd likely be my belief system that changed, since facts are ... well ... facts.)

In sum: Religion == Bad; Science == Good; God != Religion.

It's odd that with all this philosophizing on Abraham and Isaac no one has brought up Kierkegaard and "Fear and Trembling". There is an existentialist position for theism (albeit not theism as defined by most believers), although it might be more precise to say "a theistic position within existentialism".

While I am generally pretty critical of the Abrahamic faiths as practiced in the modern era, and mainstream, exoteric interpretations of religions in general, a nuanced interpretation is not only possible, but they abound within philosophical and theological literature. Abraham and Isaac is second only to the Sermon on the Mount as a favorite subject of philosophers.

If this keeps up I'll have to add you to my friends list! :) And thank you for disagreeing with me in an increasingly intelligent manner.

However as the English language does not correspond directly to predicate logic, you'd also find your "no" to be interpreted as "I think there's no God"

Yes exactly, that is what is happening. Indeed our language does not do justice to the radical difference between the statements I don't believe God exists, and I believe God does not exist. People could be forgiven for the confusion (not that I'm about to).

Whatever the nature of the language though it remains fallacious to make that inference. At a certain point we have to take away the excuse of language and just admit that people can be mistaken in their thinking. And ... correct their mistakes.

... not "I'm not willing to make the affirmative statement that there is a God, and instead say nothing"

But that's not what you would be attempting to communicate. You would instead be saying that you do not believe there is a God. You would be a denier. You're not merely avoiding being an affirmer. And surely, the failings of natural language notwithstanding, that is the most natural interpretation of the "no" answer in response to the question "do you think there is a God." You don't think there is one.

The answer that would communicate that you have no belief either way ...

I think "no belief either way" mis-characterises the situation. Our atheist simply does not believe that God exists. That's all! The question of the lack of positive non-belief only enters into consideration once someone else has drawn the unwarranted inference. Otherwise we would all, believer and non-believer alike, have to walk around with an unwieldy set of non-beliefs in the non-existence of all possibly non-existing things.

... would be "I don't know".

I'm not going to allow you to answer that to a question that begins with "Do you think ..." :)

they infer (from the fervour with which Dawkins campaigns against theism) that he actually believes that God does not exist ...

Yes, you are probably correct there.

... and is not expressing a neutral "no belief either way" position.

Apart from the fact that I don't buy the "no belief either way" description and it is certainly not a neutral position.

Oh goodness, you're not really buying into that tired old piece of rhetoric are you?

Actually I was being cheeky, I should have added a smiley. ;) But you need to slow down there a bit mate ... you're treating an analogy literally. It may be that some atheists have made of their atheism a hobby (which does make one wonder), but the "hobby" in the analogy does not mean 'hobby,' but 'belief system,' as in: Is not believing a belief system?

You've got me thinking, I should perhaps have paid more attention to the connotation of our words. Maybe it is largely the connotations which people do not wish to adopt in regard to labels such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic.'

PS. Pardon the accusatory tone in the previous. Once I got home and looked up the words on the dashboard widget under Snow Leopard I got the same definitions as you (except for 'agnostic,' of course, where you were a little naughty). I’d assumed the widgets would connect to a server for the words ... surprising. At least it shows that dictionary definitions are improving to reflect contemporary use. <ducks>

PPS if you are interested, there is an "Oxford English" widget available as well.

Rather than relying on any particular dictionary definition, I would prefer to rely on a question posed by another of my favourite authors, williamhb, "Do you think there's a God," a negative answer to which satisfies the minimum requirement to get you across the atheist threshold.

However as the English language does not correspond directly to predicate logic, you'd also find your "no" to be interpreted as "I think there's no God", not "I'm not willing to make the affirmative statement that there is a God, and instead say nothing". The answer that would communicate that you have no belief either way would be "I don't know".

Most people would call Dawkins and the new breed of "atheists" as 'atheist' and not as 'agnostic.'

And that would be because they infer (from the fervour with which Dawkins campaigns against theism) that he actually believes that God does not exist, and is not expressing a neutral "no belief either way" position.

Or is this some feeble attempt to shift the onus of proof. Is not collecting stamps really a hobby?

Oh goodness, you're not really buying into that tired old piece of rhetoric are you? If you publish books on not-stamp-collecting, travel the world speaking about not-stamp-collecting, advertise not-stamp-collecting on buses, organise societies like the Brights for not-stamp-collectors, where they can meet together to discuss their not-stamp-collecting, print t-shirts for not-stamp-collecting, and regularly go on television to advocate the benefits of not-stamp-collecting, and make your career being the world's most famous not-stamp-collector, then yes it is a hobby! It's a particularly sad hobby, being that it's exclusively about griping and whinging about stamp-collectors, but you'd clearly have made it your hobby.

Telling you what the most important things they have to say is basically like trying to tell you what the most important thing a 2,000 year old library has to say. This book, by one of the most accomplished DSS scholars is worth getting if you are really curious:
http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Today-rev/dp/080286435X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317177844&sr=1-2

People that keep talking about them as if they are a menace have probably never read any of them, and are probably looking for reasons to discount Christianity specifically, or theism generally. That's my hunch.

About the Jesus coming from Qumran thing. Jesus was from Galilee, born and raised. It is possible that he and or John the Baptist had run-ins with the Essenes (the group that we generally equate with those living in Qumran) at some point, either because there were Essenes in Galilee, or because John's itinerancy was in the Judaean wilderness after all, the same place as Qumran. To make things short, the message of Jesus and John were quite contrary to the teaching we find in the DSS.

In the future, as a good litmus test for these theories. Observe if the person saying them has a PhD, where they got it from, and what the PhD is in. There are all kinds of conspirators that have published outside the scholarly circles, with no peer review. They will either not have a PhD, have a PhD from some obscure Bible college, or have a PhD in something completely unrelated like geology or math.

Which makes no sense, since -theism is the non believe is theism, which is separate from deism (believe in God). The theist believes in an intervening (revelatory) god, which is what most atheists don't believe in. I like Christopher Hitchens distinction, he's an anti-theist. He doesn't believe in any theistic god, and doesn't wish it were true either. Sort of a strong non-theist but not a-deism.

But if a god is non-intervening does it matter if he exists anyway? How would anyone ever know he existed in the first place?

Theism is different from Deism, we really need to make this distinction more well known. It's perfectly legitimate to believe there could be a God of sorts and be an atheist, but you couldn't believe in an intervening God and call yourself an atheist.

Which makes no sense, since -theism is the non believe is theism, which is separate from deism (believe in God). The theist believes in an intervening (revelatory) god, which is what most atheists don't believe in. I like Christopher Hitchens distinction, he's an anti-theist. He doesn't believe in any theistic god, and doesn't wish it were true either. Sort of a strong non-theist but not a-deism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[1]

Frankly, that is the only moral position you can take once you see priests of major religions blessing tanks and artillery (which you know will be used against civilians), soldiers marching with religious insignia on their uniforms and flags and wars based on religious beliefs.
Not to mention the political disenfranchisement of those who do not belong to major (and ruling) religions. In secular democratic countries no less.
And let's not even start on major religions' position on gay individuals - while they protect child molesters in their own ranks.

That's all besides the fact that in our day and age only two kinds of people (given that they had at least elementary education) can actually preach ANY of that religious claptrap.
Utterly naive and gullible OR completely unscrupulous liars.