Study: science vs. religion attitudes (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 18:18 (1942 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: 'A lot of people think science and religion do not go together, but they are thinking about science in too simplistic a way and religion in too simplistic a way," said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and senior author on the paper. "Science is big enough to accommodate religion, and religion is big enough to accommodate science.'"

DAVID: Not surprising to me. I am in awe of all the science that shows many functional aspects of living organisms have to have been designed.

TONY: Pretty sure this is what we've been saying all along. I've even gone so far as to say science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap.

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: I agree that science and religion CAN go together, since science has so far failed to answer any of the fundamental questions about life’s origin, evolution and consciousness. “Must” goes too far in my opinion. It’s all a matter of faith – either in a level of existence totally unknown to us (theism) or in properties of materials that are equally unknown to us (atheism).

DAVID: Note Tony said: 'science and religion must agree, to the extent that they overlap'. You have pointed out the 'non-overlap'.

dhw: We need Tony to explain what he means.

QUOTE: "Mirror matter and even a mirror Universe might be real, but if you want to make that extraordinary claim, you'd better make sure your evidence is equally extraordinary."

DAVID: We live in this universe. How do we look out? The theory currently in vogue is if an other universe bumped into ours there should be a telltale circle in the CMB. There isn't. All the attempts are is to get rid of the appearance that the universe had a starting point and looks created.

dhw: I agree that you need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as mirror universes. You also need extraordinary evidence to justify extraordinary claims such as an unknown, eternal, sourceless, super-intelligent, immaterial mind that creates at least one universe which includes life, reproduction, multicellular organisms and consciousness. Since we do not have and, in my view, are unlikely ever to have “the full suite of evidence”, those who believe in any of these theories can only base their beliefs on faith and not on science.

DAVID: And I firmly believe ID literature convincingly proves that a mind is re required/necessary to create the designs we see.

dhw: Your firm belief (or “faith”) is no firmer than Dawkins’ firm belief (or “faith”) that science will one day prove your God to be a delusion. Neither of you has “the full suite of evidence” for your “extraordinary claims”.

Don't argue with me. Read the ID literature and then debate me.