AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Scientists have studied the Black Sea for years to investigate the story of Noah's Flood. I've always thought there was a local flood based on glacial melt for the last ice age to have stimulated the Noachian Bible story. Here is some proof: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090123101207.htm

3811 views

Why do you give this the heading "Science versus religion"? - It's always seemed probable to me that there were actual, but localised, floods that led to such stories as that of Noah or, before him, Utnapishtim surviving by building a boat. But of course the stories get more and more exaggerated and fanciful over the years as various bards get to work on them, and work in interference by gods, and moral lessons, and stories to explain the origins of local customs, or to try to justify them, so on.

--
GPJ

3685 views

Why do you give this the heading "Science versus religion"?
 - I had just received an email from a Mormon student who is writing an essay on how science sorts through the Bible stories and possible historical facts, trying to confirm or deny the validity of various Bible entries. As I previously had noted Black Sea studies have centered on the issue of Noah and the possibility that melting of the last glacial period sent huge quantities of water down the Danube into the lake that became the Black Sea. Most studies support the idea there was a more or less extensive local flood. - When I was in Israel, the guide insisted that much of the OT was true history, and certainly Israeli archaeologists are trying to prove that point, and in some ways they have, for example David's city next to the outer wall of the old part of Jeruselum. - As the student expressed it, was science fighting with or confirming parts of the Bible? Gould expresssed it as two separate magesteria. Are they? - Thanks for asking the question. It allowed me to express some of the background to my thinking about it. I don't think they are separate.

3713 views

How did Noah get two of a kind of each of the species that lived in South America, Australia, and the Galapagos Islands? Isn't it obvious? I asked myself the same question when I was 10 years old.

3686 views

How did Noah get two of a kind of each of the species that lived in South America, Australia, and the Galapagos Islands? Isn't it obvious? I asked myself the same question when I was 10 years old. - Thank you for your reply. One needs to apply logic to stories from the Bible. Then, and only then, can you realize what is a tale told to make a point, and true history. The Bible really has some true history, and Noah appears to come from stories told in other earlier religions and cultures, and very 'perhaps' from a Black Sea flood following the last glacial period. Noah is more than likely a little bit of true history and lots of 'story'. And think about rounding up all 5 million species (plant and animal) and putting 2 of each in a boat 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. (For anyone checking me a cubit is 18 inches.)

3664 views

The science vs. religion battle will continue. I know George will consider this terrible propaganda, but here is a column from Intelligent Design. In part it discusses "Expelled", the documentary with Ben Stein, illustrating the way academic scientists are discriminated against. I came to the same realizations about biochemistry of the cell long before I discovered the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/10/darwin-intelligent-design-and-freedom...

3644 views

This discussion about science and religion is well worth reading, and includes the views of a number of heavyweight thinkers. - http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html - It should be noted that Sam Harris in his comments is being satirical!

--
GPJ

3727 views

George has referred us to a website containing various articles discussing whether science and religion are compatible. - Thank you for this. The collection is packed with quotable lines and topics for further discussion, and I was especially impressed with the generally moderate and conciliatory tone. - Laurence Krauss says: "Religion is simply irrelevant to science." I think that's right. Science must advance without any preconceptions theist or atheist. But I don't think science is irrelevant to religion. Once science has established something that is beyond reasonable doubt ... e.g. the comparatively late arrival of humankind, long after other forms of life ... religions only damage themselves by denying it. The damage is particularly evident when, for instance, the religious allow slavish devotion to ancient and unreliable texts even to interfere with the advances of medical science. - I would argue that religion and science are perfectly compatible, so long as religion is not used to twist scientific facts, and science is not used to promote claims that it cannot substantiate. I suspect that everything scientists uncover about the nature of life and the universe, no matter how far back it takes us, will eventually come up against an impenetrable barrier. The intricacies may all be the result of a bizarre accident, or they may have originated through some intelligent force, and scientists will never be able to prove which hypothesis is true. I was particularly impressed by David Everett, an atheist, who writes: "When scientists believe that they are marching towards Truth in some platonic sense, they are behaving religiously and not scientifically." While the religious can create havoc by condemning beliefs different from their own, scientists have a responsibility to recognize the limitations of their own knowledge and to accept (as many clearly do) that there may be other ways of finding personal truths. I'm with Howard Gardner: "I'll settle for mutual tolerance, though I prefer mutual respect."

3614 views

DHW writes: "I would argue that religion and science are perfectly compatible, so long as religion is not used to twist scientific facts, and science is not used to promote claims that it cannot substantiate." - But surely this requires a redefinition of what "religion" means, and a considerable pruning of current relogious dogmas. If "religion" is reduced to the very abstract approach of Spinoza or Einstein is it still "religion" or just "reverence for nature" which many atheists have?

--
GPJ

3603 views

I believe that religion and science are compatible if religion is not used to twist scientific facts, and science is not used to promote claims it cannot substantiate. George has replied: "But surely this requires a redefinition of what "religion" means, and a considerable pruning in current religious dogma." - I agree, though perhaps it needs a definition rather than a redefinition. The question asked on the website you recommended is probably not precise enough, though I think we both know what was meant. There are so many religions, so many variations within the religions themselves, and so many different concepts of God that we can probably only discuss the question by confining ourselves to generalities. Obviously, fundamentalism of any kind will not be compatible with anything else. However, the main monotheistic religions all have in common a belief in a God who created the Earth and everything in it. Science cannot prove that life was not the result of a deliberate act, and it is not the scientist's place to say that it was the result of an accident, since science has no objective evidence for such a theory. To that extent there is no reason why science and religion should not co-exist in peace and harmony. On subjects that affect religious dogma (like evolution), a Christian or Jew may simply acknowledge (as many do) that the Bible can't always be taken literally. They will still see God as being responsible for these events and the related processes. Other details, such as the omnipotence, omniscience, and loving nature of such a being are not the province of science, so the religious and the agnostic can quarrel amongst themselves on that subject, and science can just get on with examining how it all happened, or how it was all done. The choice of verbs will, of course, depend on the personal beliefs of the scientist.

3663 views

dhw: "Science cannot prove that life was not the result of a deliberate act, and it is not the scientist's place to say that it was the result of an accident." - Well, technically the first part is right, but only philosophically. Formally, science cannot disprove the statement "The world was created five minutes ago, complete with memories and fossils". It might have been created with all the appearance and proof of extreme age. Vanishingly small though the possibility is, formally we cannot know otherwise. - I take issue with the second part. On the contrary, it is very much the scientist's place to say that, on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, life on Earth is likely to have arisen accidentally - a result of chance, the playing out of the Drake equation, the Goldilocks effect or whatever reasons she advances. Remember that science deals with likelihoods and probabilities and is constantly being revised. It is a method, not a set of facts. - If you recall, this is where I came into the discussion last year. We have different views about abiogenesis and you take the pessimistic view that science will never be able to explain it. - As you know, my opinion is that science one day will, and I go further to say: yours is the classic argument to ignorance. You say "science can't explain this so science can never do so." I disagree. I say it suits you to be pessimistic about the ability of science here because, for your own religious reasons, you want to leave room for God. You're a formal agnostic but a wannabe theist.

3671 views

dhw: "Science cannot prove that life was not the result of a deliberate act, and it is not the scientist's place to say that it was the result of an accident."
 - 
> I take issue with the second part. On the contrary, it is very much the scientist's place to say that, on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, life on Earth is likely to have arisen accidentally..... Remember that science deals with likelihoods and probabilities and is constantly being revised. It is a method, not a set of facts.
 
Here I have to disagree. It is specifically because science deals in evidence and probabilities that the issue of origin of life can be debated. Given the finite amount of scientifically accepted time in which life appeared (between 700-900 million years) and the calculable odds against the formation of coded protein molecules from inorganic molecules, the probabilities against chance allow the debate. - > I say it suits you to be pessimistic about the ability of science here because, for your own religious reasons, you want to leave room for God. You're a formal agnostic but a wannabe theist. - I would not call dhw pessimistic,for the reasons given above, but he requires absolute proof of a loving God, and all religions indicate that is impossible. That requires the willingness to accept absolute faith, the same faith that you have in science's abilities. Do you expect science can go beyond the wall of quantum uncertainty, a la' Heisenberg, and Bell's Theorem to the contrary?

3630 views

In my post of 23 February at 12.09 I had said I thought science and religion were compatible if religion was not used to twist scientific facts, and if science was not used to promote claims it could not substantiate. In this context, I wrote: "Science cannot prove that life was not the result of a deliberate act, and it is not the scientist's place to say that it was the result of an accident, since science has no objective evidence for such a theory." - Your sarcastic comments on the first part of this are irrelevant, as I was trying to explain why scientists should be able to live with religion. Concerning the second half you write: "It is very much the scientist's place to say that, on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, life on Earth is likely to have arisen accidentally [...] Remember that science deals with likelihoods and probabilities and is constantly being revised. It is a method, not a set of facts." Where do you get your authority ... or where does your scientist get his ... for making such a pronouncement about life on Earth? Of course scientists are perfectly entitled to express their opinions, but on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, any scientist with the least respect for the objectivity of his profession would have to qualify "is likely" with "I think". However, once again you have missed the point. Along with my own caveat ("I think"), if your fictional scientist acknowledges that his subjective opinion does not constitute a set of facts, and everything he says is liable to revision, I see no reason why science and religion should not co-exist. In my view, only fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist atheism are incompatible, since they allow for none of the reservations you have listed. - You write: "We have different views about abiogenesis, and you take the pessimistic view that science will never be able to explain it." We seem to have a different understanding of the word "abiogenesis", which is defined in all my dictionaries as a theory or hypothesis ... namely, that life can come into being spontaneously from non-living materials. I think you take it only to mean the origin of life. I am sceptical as to whether science will ever be able to prove that life on Earth arose spontaneously (i.e. by accident), though I am not sceptical about the ability of science eventually to find the combinations that led to life. You quote me as saying: "Science can't explain this so science can never do so." I have never said that. - Your final paragraph emphasizes your faith that science will one day prove atheism to be correct, and since I don't share your faith, you conclude that I "want to leave room for God" and am a "wannabe theist". You clearly haven't a clue what agnosticism means.

3629 views

You write: "We have different views about abiogenesis, and you take the pessimistic view that science will never be able to explain it." We seem to have a different understanding of the word "abiogenesis", which is defined in all my dictionaries as a theory or hypothesis ... namely, that life can come into being spontaneously from non-living materials. I think you take it only to mean the origin of life. I am sceptical as to whether science will ever be able to prove that life on Earth arose spontaneously (i.e. by accident), though I am not sceptical about the ability of science eventually to find the combinations that led to life. You quote me as saying: "Science can't explain this so science can never do so." I have never said that. - Fortuitously, an article about origin of life popped up today. Dr. Deamer's optimism is so strong, perhaps an 'r' should be slipped into his name. Please note his statement that this research is very,very early in any type of 'discovery' of importance. dhw is correct: a combination of molecules may be found to create a form of life, but I would remind, what we would be watching is intelligent design by lab rat scientists. I've been one myself in the past. There is always optimism that you will prove the point you are researching. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090215151611.htm

3634 views


> Remember that science deals with likelihoods and probabilities and is constantly being revised. It is a method, not a set of facts.[/i]" Where do you get your authority ... or where does your scientist get his ... for making such a pronouncement about life on Earth? Of course scientists are perfectly entitled to express their opinions, but on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, any scientist with the least respect for the objectivity of his profession would have to qualify "is likely" with "I think". ....... I think you take it only to mean the origin of life. I am sceptical as to whether science will ever be able to prove that life on Earth arose spontaneously (i.e. by accident), though I am not sceptical about the ability of science eventually to find the combinations that led to life. - Excellent observations. This post shows how scientific reasearch teams battle back and forth even to establish a fact of minimal importance, the age of life on Earth. What does it matter if it was 3.8 or 3.7 billion years ago? The real point is that it appeared so soon after events on early Earth calmed down enough to allow life to try to appear. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090216131450.htm

3684 views

Er, what's with all the ad hominems - rude, presumptuous, sarcastic? (I refer here to this and other other posting.) Anyways, undaunted, I shall press on...! - Actually, my "sarcastic comments" merely echo Bertrand Russell's perfectly valid point that, philosophically, there were limits to what you could disprove with science and formal logic. However implausible it is, it's impossible to disprove that the world was created five minutes ago complete with memories and fossils. Perhaps old Bertie was being sarcastic about his religionist critics - I wouldn't put it past him and, in view of their pompous absurdity, I'd like to think so. - Accordingly, my response to your comment that "science cannot disprove that life was not the result of a deliberate act" is entirely on the point, is it not? In any event, it is incumbent on anyone making a claim like that to explain what kind of deliberate act they are positing. Failing that, you're into teapots orbiting the Sun territory. If you have theory, let's hear it. If it's just the possibility that "Godunnit," then it wouldn't be much of a theory would it? - You continue with the ad hominems. I actually consider myself to have a relatively sound understanding of agnosticism and, indeed, consider myself an agnostic for reasons you've probably forgotten (and which I have absolutely no reason to expect you to have retained). My point was that, with all due respect, I think yours is/was an "agnosticism-of-the-gaps" (and thus a sitting duck for the explanatory power of future science) whereas I think my agnosticism is ontological and therefore, in principle, concerned with matters forever outside the magisterium of science. It's not built on sand with the tide of science coming in. - You have justifiably, if a little pedantically, reminded me that "abiogenesis" is formally different from other theories on the "origin of life" and, at the risk to resurrecting a stale debate, I will simply restate my hunch/ understanding/ belief (in the non-relious sense, of course). I think that the scientific method will one day explain, imperfectly but infinitely better than we now do, how life arose from inanimate matter. This not scientistic, a common if a misguided and irritating charge - it's just a hunch! But just because we may never properly understand the process in detail doesn't alter the reality. Because it concerns the behaviour of material, it is firmly within the magisterium of science. - Anyway, there isn't a scientist worth her salt that wouldn't qualify her theory with the sort of caveats you require (I don't quite follow your point here). Good science is, after all, a humble and honest occupation, based on an awareness that knowledge is inherently provisional and implicitly accepting of its own limitations and the possibility of error. That's why it can be trusted as the best way we have of determining truth claims. Darwin was keen to ensure that all the objections he envisaged to his theory were included with the Origin. There aren't many religionists who are similarly humble about their beliefs. The world would be a rather more pleasant place if they didn't strut about pretending their preposterous transcendental realism provided ready-made answers to the complexity and wonder of life. I daresay you agree. - But I still say your position, as previously stated on these pages, is/was best characterised by the summation "science can't explain this so science never can do so". It is not an adequate answer for you to reply that you never said that. I know you haven't said that in terms: I extrapolated this meaning from your various postings. However, curiously, you now say "I am not sceptical about the ability of science eventually to find the combinations that led to life." It looks like you've shifted your ground. That was my view and we disagreed! If I've got you wrong, what's yours then?

3625 views

PART ONE - 
John Clinch has responded to my two posts of 26 February (one under 'The Paranormal'). - I'm delighted that you are undaunted and will "press on", and I too will press on in the hope that eventually we'll make contact! First, let me get my complaints out of the way. You wrote: "I know you haven't said that in terms: I extrapolated this meaning from your various postings." Most of my ad hominems were in response to your ad feminams, when you mocked BBella (25 February) for things she never wrote. Interpretation always contains a degree of subjectivity ... see the discussion on Gestalt theory ... but your extrapolations sometimes lead you to pounce on shadows of your own imagining, as you have done several times with my own posts. - This is due partly to your tendency to take comments out of their context. For instance, you're flogging Russell's orbiting teapot for all it's worth (discussed about a year ago under "teapot agnosticism", if you're interested) because you've focused on a single sentence out of two long posts on the subject of whether science and religion might be compatible. If you care to read George's posts and mine, you will see that I was explaining why I thought the two could co-exist. The quote you took out of context had nothing to do with arguments for or against God's existence. I was merely indicating the factors that favoured co-existence, just as I had also indicated those that might prevent it. Your request now for theories shows how far you've wandered off the subject. - I had indeed forgotten that you were an agnostic, and so perhaps there was a genuine misunderstanding here. I was under the impression you thought science would come up with all the answers. Since I have no such faith, and agnosticism (the original Huxley form) is based precisely on the impossibility of anything coming up with all the answers, your questioning my agnosticism could only have sprung from your not knowing the meaning of the term. However, it's now clear that you were referring just to one particular set of answers, and I too was guilty of extrapolating more than I should have done from your post. My apologies therefore for that 'ad hominem'. - This particular set of answers, however, is also a cause of misunderstandings. When I wrote: "I am not sceptical about the ability of science eventually to find the combinations that led to life", you thought I was being inconsistent. There is a colossal gap between finding the combinations and finding out how they happened. Even if/when scientists find out under what conditions and with what combinations inorganic matter can become organic, all they will have proved is that intelligent men and women can work out the conditions and combinations. They will not be able to say with even a modicum of authority: "This proves that life can (let alone has) come about by accident." The complexities are so unimaginably enormous that it will still require an act of faith to believe it. The misunderstanding may well have been caused by your slight confusion over the meaning of abiogenesis. - PART TWO FOLLOWS

3630 views

PART TWO - I remain mystified by your earlier assertion (off the subject of compatibility) that "it is very much the place of scientists to say that, on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, life on Earth is likely to have arisen accidentally". My point, which you couldn't quite follow, is that this is purely a matter of opinion and has no scientific basis (which of course is why it's not a barrier to compatibility between science and religion). Furthermore, since you believe there are matters beyond the scope of science, I'm equally mystified by your scathing attitude towards human experiences that may possibly be linked to such matters. I'm not suggesting you accept anything. I'm asking how an agnostic can be so sure that he knows all the answers about these particular fields. If you acknowledge the possibility of some kind of super-intelligence in the universe, how do you separate it from all the unanswered questions about life? As for strutting religionists, I find them no more and no less objectionable than strutting atheists and strutting agnostics. Nobody has "ready-made answers", so nobody should strut. - "Agnosticism-of-the-gaps" ... yes of course that's what it is, and it's a pity that "gaps" are now referred to in such a derogatory way. All beliefs (and many disbeliefs) entail filling in the gaps (back to Gestalten), and it's only non-beliefs that leave the gaps open. So if future science fills some in, beliefs/disbeliefs/non-beliefs may have to change. Nothing wrong with that. Agnosticism (modern I-don't-know, as opposed to classic I-can't-know) isn't something you fight to defend. Its whole essence is that it's open. The gaps for me are the origin and complexities of life and the universe, and the (apparent) inexplicableness of certain human experiences and faculties. Perhaps you will tell us what gaps have led to your own agnosticism or, to put it in your terms, what matters you regard as being "forever outside the magisterium of science", thereby preventing your commitment to theism or atheism. - P.S. In your response to David Turell, I see you describe yourself as a materialist and a monist. This suggests an unusual form of agnosticism. Please tell us more.

3675 views

Does intercessory prayer work? So far after 40+ years of studies there is no definitve answer: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617154401.htm

3527 views

This is an excellent discussion of science and atheism from a scientist's viewpoint: - 
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html

3527 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum