Can science really disprove somethings existence?

[achilles12604]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God. Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence, and history can be wrong.

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist.

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

You don't need to answer. My point is very simply that bible thumpers and science thumpers sometimes have similar issues regarding their claims of total knowledge. Neither can truly get the whole picture alone.

But what picture is this? Lets say there is more to this world than science knows. How do we know this? What methodology do we deploy? And the point I’ve been banging on about over several threads the last few days is the only correct method for addressing reality is naturalism because only naturalism can meet the full set of criteria: prediction, verification, falsification and assigns a clear definition to all the signs it deploys in its answers. Any explanation that fails to meet this benchmark is intellectually vacuous. Regardless of the depth of conviction of any given non naturalistic belief.

However I detect that this point is not lost on you achilles because you make great attempts to rationalise your belief system, and I know you think that what is supernatural is only what science does not yet understand. That is easy for a full blown naturalist to admit. What we cannot admit is that the theist can fill in the gaps.

I guess this is where some degree of theistic faith comes in. Hey that gives me a thought. Is faith provable by science? For example, would science be able to determine someone's beliefs? If science is unable to determine someone's beliefs and faith, does that mean that the person's faith does not exist?

My questions for discussion.

Is science able to determine someone's beliefs without being told? Another possible question to clarify this point is can science prove that someone who is now dead, had beliefs while alive?

If silence is maintained and a person's beliefs can not be determined, does this mean the beliefs do not exist?

[achilles12604]

.......
So now, my narrowed down questions

1) If science is unable to test something, is it valid in claiming said thing does not exist at all?

If yes, explain.

If no . . .

2) Are non-theists who claim lack of scientific evidence disproves God, presenting a valid argument?

1) Though you may not be able to test something that is claimed to exist but of which there is no evidence, you can test for what it is not. Every day you probably use Bayes' theorem to manage SPAM as this tells the program how to revise its belief in light of new evidence a posteriori. The SPAM doesn't exist until you see it and mark it SPAM so you have a criteria for what is not-SPAM before you see it. What you want to see is just the not-SPAM i.e. the real messages.

As the nature of what is god (or gods) is well documented in historical books (Torah, Bible, Quran etc) these texts can be used to both define what is not-SPAM and that which fails is discarded as SPAM.

With science, a hypothesis is stated (claimed). It is expected to be a true proposition in the real world but Bayes can be used to apply a probability to the truth value of this hypothesis and this is quite a valid approach. The real question is the same as with SPAM filters; are we erring on the side of too many false negatives ? Is there a message from "God" which has been discarded as SPAM ?.

Given the millions of people looking into the problem I suspect not to date and that we don't have to worry about this happening in the future. (Of course the joke could be on all of us in that 125,000 years ago the truth from the one true monkey god who revealed the secrets to life, the universe and everything was written in a simple but elegant script but it's currently buried under masses of coral in the Red Sea after an argument about the truth making things float or sink was soundly resolved when the only extant copy of the truth from the monkey god was written on stone tablets and attempted to be floated. It's all true.).

Is this a no? It was really wordy and I think you lost me somewhere (probably with the computer talk as I can not do SQUAT with a computer). If science is unable to test something, is it valid in claiming said thing does not exist at all? You said no, right?

For question 2), you have to be more precise; non-theists who claim lack of scientific evidence disproves God are presenting a valid argument if they qualify that as not so much disprove but that the lack of evidence makes any god or improbable. Only strong atheists would claim that there is no god and there are few of these around (Dawkins is not an example here as he claims god is improbable).

So the few non-theists who claim lack of scientific evidence disproves (100%) God are not presenting a valid argument.

This is a little closer to what I hold to be accurate so I can't disagree totally with you. Now of course we need to argue about improbable.

How does a study of science cause the existence of God to be improbable? How can Science even comment since its yes or no response is directly preceeded by tests and examinations? Without the examinations, how can science even comment?

It is maybe in both cases. Very little in science is yes or no; you want maths if you want truth like that.

Like I said - the Holy Books tell us what to test for. Some books - such as the Quran - are very clearly claimed to be revelations from God, whereas the Bible has a lot murkier history.

We can actually use the Quran to cast doubts on the Christian god whilst the current leaders of these religions claim these are one and the same God. If, like some Christians , people say they are different Gods then I guess we have to divide the problem and cast doubt on both faiths in isolation.

Of course if theists now claim that no holy book can offer any clues as to the nature of God then science has nothing to test. I don't think that is the case is it ?. The Scripture or Quran are very clearly claimed to be the "word" of "god".

Cast doubts on those claims and you cast doubts on the origin.

The Science of the Bible and the Quran are a start. I'm not talking about flat or round Earth or other specious arguments but the sheer paucity of any new knowledge.

So whilst theists impose their rule on this temporal realm, science can comment on the validity of theist claims. Whilst the Pope ex cathedra in Munificentissimus Deus claims a human body is present in "heaven" then it can be argued that "heaven" occupies space (if not time) to accommodate the body and so science can question the probability of this given what we know of physics of the universe and claims of heavens and hells. For one I would be curious if the estimated 1 kilo (2 pounds) of bacteria that a human body has which are vital for the maintenance of human health were also assumed. If bacteria (which outnumber human cells 10 to 1) and yeasts and fungus were "filtered" in the "transport" then what about any viruses hiding in Mary's body ?. If they were filtered then what about prions ?....or does the transport also filter the difference between proteins resistant to proteases and those that are not.

Immediately fantastic claims are made without evidence then I think is more than reasonable to expect science to question the fantasy.

THIS position, I can accept as valid. It confines science to the realm where science is applicable.

As for many of the claims of different religions, my opinion of them, including much of the bible should be well known around here for the most part. I accept some of them, reject others outright and with most, read them like parables but not literally. If the quran wants to claim to be a book of science, then great. Let it stand on its own claims. But mixing the bible and the quran together isn't really valid unless of course you were comparing and contrasting.

[Furrowed Brow]

You made the point that science requires observations in order to test things. Without observing Joe and Moe, science hasn't got a clue. If Joe simply walked into a test room by himself and told the scientists to determine if he was a believer or an atheist, science would totally be lost. Why?

Totally lost? Well first I think they could ask them some questions. Maybe put a lie detector on them to see if they answered sincerely and so on. It would not be great methodology but it would be a start.

Because science is limited to what it can test.

I’m making a much stronger point than that. The very meaning of our words is out there in public. Without social context words have no meanings, and outside of social context they have no meaning.

This is the issue I have with the atheists claim that science does not bode well for religion. Richard Dawkins is one who firmly states that belief in God is stupid in light of scientific discovery. But this statement in itself is ridiculous since science is totally unable to comment on God in any way.

I’m with you on that one Achilles - but not because such things cannot be tested and therefore not known but for the reason if they cannot be tested they are meaningless.

Take Joe and Moe in the test room connected up to lie detectors. The scientist asks them “do they have faith?”. Both say yes. Joe passes the lie detector showing no stress at all when asked. Moe on the other hand fails the lie detector. The scientists then provisionally concludes that Joe indeed has faith, whilst Moe has not.

What is the meaning of Joe’s faith, and Moe’s lack of faith? Well, it is defined by what has gone on in the test room and recorded by the lie detector -and only that what has gone on. It is the words uttered by Moe and Joe in response to a question, it is their stress levels when answering the question. And that is it. The meaning of Joe’s faith is just that. For that is all the scientist has observed.

Breaking out of the confines of one small test room, let say the scientist - as per the Truman Show, but this is the Joe + Moe show - observes Joe and Moe from birth to death. Everything is recorded. The meaning of Joe’s and Moe’s faith will be represented by those recordings and only those recordings. The scientist will have more data, but the basic logic of the point remains the same.

If the scientist forms an hypothesis that that faith is an identifiable brain state that occurs in one area of the brain, then he has to find ways of testing that hypothesis. Lets say after years of extensive investigation the scientist locates one small area of the brain responsible for “faith”. But again the same basic point - the brain state is not Joe or Moe’s faith. Their faith is being recoded on the Joe + Moe show tapes. By locating the area of the brain responsible for faith behaviour all the scientist will have done is add one more layer of information to what the word faith encompasses. We understand faith behaviour a bit more deeply, but “faith” has not been discovered. To see Joe’s and Moe’s faith just go watch the Joe and Moe show.

But what if after years of investigation the scientist finds that faith correlates to a myriad of different brain states. There is no single identifiable brain pattern that corresponds to faith. That does not mean someone does not have faith - again, because the meaning of the word faith is public. It is recorded out there in the world and not in the head.

I have brought this subject up several times in different threads. The mind as defined by words like belief, intentions, hopes, desires and in this context faith is not in the head, because the meanings of these words is not in the head. Meaning is out there in the world.

If science is unable to comment yes or no, then is Dawkin’s statement valid in any way?

I think Dawkins needs to read more philosophy of language. He is guilty of trying to make the question of God an epistemological question, whereas it is a question as to the meaning of our words and the limits of meaning.

QED states that in the future science may be able to determine someone's faith based on their brainwaves. While this is speculation and is therefore a non-falsifiable argument, it COULD happen. But WHY would this be able to occur in the future?

For the reasons I’ve just pointed out, If science found the brain waves that correlate with expression of faith, the brains waves will not be a person’s “faith”.

Because science has access to our minds to test and record and probe them until they get an answer. Now, if science is yet unable to test or probe something, is it possible to claim that the something simply doesn't exist until science discovers it?

You are right here. But I’ll keep drawing you back to think about what it is we might be looking for, and whether a conceptual mistake is being made. Rather than this being a question of what we can know, I’m going to keep saying it is really a question of the meaning of our words and the limits of meaning.

1) If science is unable to test something, is it valid in claiming said thing does not exist at all?

But what are we testing for? Faith? The meaning of this word is out there not in the head. Whatever science finds out about what goes on in the head that adds to the meaning of the word but it does not prove the existence of faith. I can tell you faith exists just by citing the numbers of people that attend churches and mosques. The museum with models that show humans living with dinosaurs, and so on.

Okay, how about the soul? Sometimes this word is used to identify someone’s personality e.g. “they are a kindly soul”, other times it is a theological concept. In the former use I have no problem admitting the souls is meaningful word. Also if one has some hypothesis that the human personality survives death as some sort wave function, or in some other dimension, then that sounds like something that can be scientifically explored. Put that way I’d say the concept is meaningful, but probably false. If however the concept is that the soul is an incorporeal state. Then that kind of claim is literally meaningless. The only thing giving meaning to the word “incorporeal” is then the activity of a bunch of philosopher and theologians who like to use the word. An activity that amounts to very little indeed.

2) Are non-theists who claim lack of scientific evidence disproves God, presenting a valid argument?

I think they are confused regarding the logic and semantics of the argument.

However I’d say that the word “God” represents all those social contexts, and human behaviours that are associated with the word “God” - and no more. The god of worship, taken out of the context of worship is in itself meaningless because the word can convey no more meaning. It is then correct to say that the word “God” as many attempt you use it is nonsensical.

You’ve probably seen it many times now. I have had it since I’ve joined. But my signature says it all.

[achilles12604]

Furrowed Brow

you are making many good points. I have been discussing much tonight and due to your previous comments I have had to alter my argument. This of course will probably change up your responses.

Due to new evidence I have been forced to change up my argument slightly. My first argument was not totally solid, nor did it fully capture the essence of what I was trying to say because I chose an example which was sub-par.

So let me review . . .

Marriage is a poor analogy in this case as it is a "real" or tangible thing. Ideas or "faiths" are different from marriage in several ways. Marriage is ineffective by ones self. It is not contained within he person. In many ways there are items associated with marriage. Only the last one is applicable to faiths and then only if they choose to employ them. I for one do not wear a cross, or have fish on the back of my car. But I still have faith and beliefs associated with that faith.

Okay. Faith. Again I pursue the line that a within/without, inner/outer dichotomy is - though the common way of talking - a conceptual mistake when dealing with the mind/person. What is it about faith that is contained in the person that is not exhibited by behaviour?

Lets take two twins Joe and Moe. Lets say they both behave in exactly the same way. And lets say both exhibit no behaviours that would lead any observer to tell that either had faith. Neither go to church, read scripture or do or saying thing with any religious connotation. Lets say their behaviour are as identical as their DNA.

Now lets say each answers a tick box questionnaire. The first question is “Do you have faith in God?”. Moe ticks the no box, but for the first time ever Joe behaves in a different way to his twin and ticks the yes box. This is the only behaviour which has ever distinguished the two. Has Joe got something Moe has not?

What does it even mean for Joe to tick yes. He never prays. Never makes any commitments that Moe does not make. Does Joe even understand what faith means?

Lets say Moe has seen that Joe has ticked the faith box. Puzzled Moe points out that Joe blasphemes just like he does, that Joe subscribes to evolution and the best scientific theories available. When they talk about the creation of the universe both do not subscribe to any supernatural theories. In fact that is the next question they answered. To the question did God create the universe both Moe and Joe ticked No. In fact both are pretty scathing about scripture and all religious writings.

Moe points out this inconsistency to Joe and asks him again why he ticked the faith box. Joe shrugs and say that is the answer he felt he should tick, and that by ticking the box he is reporting a personal inner relationship he has with God.

‘What relationship?’ asks Moe a little exasperated..
‘My inner relationship’. Replies Joe. ‘Because it is within me you cannot see it?”

Ask to expand Joe declines. He tells Moe the tick in the box is all he has top say on the matter. Both give up on the conversation and go for a beer instead.

Over the next few years Joe and Moe’s behaviour mirror each other in every respect. No church, praying, scripture, or anything resembling a religious attitude ever manifest itself in either of their behaviours. Then over a beer one night Moe asks whether Joe still has that personal relationship with God.

‘Yep’ says Joe.
‘Well’ says Moe ‘I reckon anything you’ve got I must have too‘.
‘You got a relationship with god now?’ asks Joe.
‘Yep’ says Moe. ‘Must have if you’ve got one. We’re the same in every other respect.’

They say no more on the matter and go back to the beer and continue to live as they always have. Which is not very long. On the way home drunk driving both Joe and Moe are involved in some fatal accident. The funeral parlour attempts to ascertain their religious status. Asking friends and family the undertaker can find no suggestion that either Joe or Moe held any religious principles. Lets assume the undertakers enquiries are thorough, though he is missing is the questionaire and the last conversation Joe and Moe had over a beer. Otherwise he knows everything there is to know about Joe and Moe. There is absolutely nothing else to suggest either had faith.

In one last effort the undertaker digs up the questionnaire. As a result he decides to give Joe a religious service - though he wonders why. The undertaker suspects Joe probably ticked the wrong box by mistake. He give Moe a secular service.


Okay.....

Thanks for bearing with me on the tale of Joe and Moe. The point is that I’m hoping you would agree that Joe and Moe have a gossamer thin notion of what faith entails. What I am driving at is that the stuff that actually gives meaning to the word “faith” is the stuff that someone does, says, writes, and the social context in which these things occur. And it is not just Faith. No language is private because the sense and meaning of our words is public embedded in social context and an individuals behaviour within a social context.

Pain might be a vivid example. If we all were able to feel pain but no one ever exhibited pain behaviour I.e. people never retracted their hands from heat, or winced when they trapped their fingers in a car door, and people with heart attacks continued to work and chat until the very moment they dropped down dead, and then they'd fall to the ground chuckling not groaning - the word “pain” would make no sense. Like pain or pleasure you could say that faith is some personal experience. . But again the concept of “personal expereince” is meaningless without observable behaviour.

You have made a couple good points here. And interestingly they are for several different threads. You give me so many good ideas. Anyway, I think you have now made a point I can expand on and answer QED at the same time.


You made the point that sience requires observations in order to test things. Without observing Joe and Moe, science hasn't got a clue. If Joe simply walked into a test room by himself and told the scientists to determine if he was a believer or an atheist, science would totally be lost. Why?

Because science is limited to what it can test. This is the issue I have with the atheists claim that science does not bode well for religion. Richard Dawkins is one who firmly states that belief in God is stupid in light of scientific discovery. But this statement in itself is rediculous since science is totally unable to comment on God in any way.

If science is unable to comment yes or no, then is Dawkin's statement valid in any way?

QED states that in the future science may be able to determine someone's faith based on their brainwaves. While this is speculation and is therefore a non-falsifyable argument, it COULD happen. But WHY would this be able to occur in the future?

Because science has access to our minds to test and record and probe them until they get an answer. Now, if science is yet unable to test or probe something, is it possible to claim that the something simply doesn't exist until science discovers it? Another example is string theory. Go back 250 years and declare the possibility of the string theory. How likely is it that you would be hailed as a genius?

Science has progressed and suddenly a new possibility exists. But my question is does the possibility exist BECAUSE science discovered it? OR did the possibility exist all along and we were simply unable to test it at that time?

QED- This is my point. The way you put things it seems that until science discovers something it can not exist. But is this really a solid position to take?



Now let me restate my ultimate question.

If science is unable to comment on something, is it then fair to declare that something to be non-existent based on scientific research?

Thanks to QED and Furrowed for assisting in focusing the argument.

So given that science is learning new things everyday, I can conceed that in the future it may very well be able to determine someone's belief based on brain readings.

So now, my narrowed down questions

1) If science is unable to test something, is it valid in claiming said thing does not exist at all?

If yes, explain.

If no . . .

2) Are non-theists who claim lack of scientific evidence disproves God, presenting a valid argument?

Here is where I left off after our last discussions. I would suggest reviewing my discussion with Byo as we did reach a place of agreement mostly. Then I would love further comments. If you still want me to address your last post, then I would be happy to.

[QED]

So now, my narrowed down questions

1) If science is unable to test something, is it valid in claiming said thing does not exist at all?

If yes, explain.

If no . . .

First, in science, any hypothesis that cannot be tested is considered worthless. It may be more instructive to look into why something is untestable.

There are some problems built into this question (for the Theist). Short of us believing in a Deistic God how can something like the Christian God interact with our world without giving science something to get its teeth into? If God is neatly bounded by "what science can test for" God would seem to be placed beyond everyone's reach. Does God interact with the world yes or no? If yes, then science can test for the interaction. If not, then why be interested in God at all?

If we switch to another article of faith, like "life after death" you might argue that while it has no effect on us (isn't it funny to have to qualify us with "while we're alive") it may do someday. Now we are up against the scientific question of what makes us "alive". This isn't such an open-ended question as many seem to think. It falls into precisely the same category as invisible tea-pots etc. The claim that "invisible, undetectable teapots" don't exist is a scientific claim and, I think a reasonably valid one at that.

You were right to look for something less fanciful that we do have knowledge of independent of science -- i.e. human thought. Here you're on a quest for the supernatural, but the very existence of the interdisciplinary field of Neuropsychology should be sufficient to make you look elsewhere. Unfortunately I think you'll find nothing that fits the bill. This is a reflection of a number of features of the world: forensics are possible because the world is regular/lawful/predictable even if only in a statistical sense.

2) Are non-theists who claim lack of scientific evidence disproves God, presenting a valid argument?

This is a very different question to (1). There you defined something as being "untestable". A "lack" of evidence resulting from something defined to generate no evidence of itself can reasonably be said to be non-existent for all practical purposes. If God is supposed to exist for practical purposes then you are presumably able to supply something that can be tested.

[byofrcs]

.....

Immediately fantastic claims are made without evidence then I think is more than reasonable to expect science to question the fantasy.

THIS position, I can accept as valid. It confines science to the realm where science is applicable.

As for many of the claims of different religions, my opinion of them, including much of the bible should be well known around here for the most part. I accept some of them, reject others outright and with most, read them like parables but not literally. If the quran wants to claim to be a book of science, then great. Let it stand on its own claims. But mixing the bible and the quran together isn't really valid unless of course you were comparing and contrasting.

Mixing the bible and the quran together *is* valid. You must have heard of "Abrahamic religions" ! It's not just me who suggests this !.

Truthfully I'm happier that the holy books are separated. That way, with two or more mutually exclusive "gods" and numerous sects within those faith the individual claims of the faiths fall like a house of cards and rest simply on hearsay. As these religions have discovered over time their empty words can only be supported by big sticks as they have no evidence of the truth. And we're not even talking "incontrovertible"...we're talking, NO evidence that someone could reasonably examine.

So I feel that science can offer hope across the board here for people of all faiths. Attempts by some to pigeon hole it to a narrow field to protect religious truths from inspection sound like a cover-up to me. What you guys hidding ?. I know there is a lot of money to be made in religion; is that what you are trying to protect ?.

[Beto]

Science is governed by logic, correct? If A is found logically possible, science can only disprove it by finding B in its place. If A is logically impossible (like the "god" construct) it disproves itself.

[achilles12604]

Science is governed by logic, correct? If A is found logically possible, science can only disprove it by finding B in its place. If A is logically impossible (like the "god" construct) it disproves itself.

I would agree with you here except for your assumption. Other than the inserted opinion, you have a solid claim here.

[achilles12604]

.....

Immediately fantastic claims are made without evidence then I think is more than reasonable to expect science to question the fantasy.

THIS position, I can accept as valid. It confines science to the realm where science is applicable.

As for many of the claims of different religions, my opinion of them, including much of the bible should be well known around here for the most part. I accept some of them, reject others outright and with most, read them like parables but not literally. If the quran wants to claim to be a book of science, then great. Let it stand on its own claims. But mixing the bible and the quran together isn't really valid unless of course you were comparing and contrasting.

Mixing the bible and the quran together *is* valid. You must have heard of "Abrahamic religions" ! It's not just me who suggests this !.

Truthfully I'm happier that the holy books are separated. That way, with two or more mutually exclusive "gods" and numerous sects within those faith the individual claims of the faiths fall like a house of cards and rest simply on hearsay. As these religions have discovered over time their empty words can only be supported by big sticks as they have no evidence of the truth. And we're not even talking "incontrovertible"...we're talking, NO evidence that someone could reasonably examine.

So I feel that science can offer hope across the board here for people of all faiths. Attempts by some to pigeon hole it to a narrow field to protect religious truths from inspection sound like a cover-up to me. What you guys hidding ?. I know there is a lot of money to be made in religion; is that what you are trying to protect ?.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. You used the example that the Quran claims to be a book of science. And you correctly said that with this in mind, if its science is proven incorrect, it goes against the Quran. However, this does not mean that the validity of the Bible suffers from the shortfall of the Quran. Would you agree?

[byofrcs]

.....

Immediately fantastic claims are made without evidence then I think is more than reasonable to expect science to question the fantasy.

THIS position, I can accept as valid. It confines science to the realm where science is applicable.

As for many of the claims of different religions, my opinion of them, including much of the bible should be well known around here for the most part. I accept some of them, reject others outright and with most, read them like parables but not literally. If the quran wants to claim to be a book of science, then great. Let it stand on its own claims. But mixing the bible and the quran together isn't really valid unless of course you were comparing and contrasting.

Mixing the bible and the quran together *is* valid. You must have heard of "Abrahamic religions" ! It's not just me who suggests this !.

Truthfully I'm happier that the holy books are separated. That way, with two or more mutually exclusive "gods" and numerous sects within those faith the individual claims of the faiths fall like a house of cards and rest simply on hearsay. As these religions have discovered over time their empty words can only be supported by big sticks as they have no evidence of the truth. And we're not even talking "incontrovertible"...we're talking, NO evidence that someone could reasonably examine.

So I feel that science can offer hope across the board here for people of all faiths. Attempts by some to pigeon hole it to a narrow field to protect religious truths from inspection sound like a cover-up to me. What you guys hidding ?. I know there is a lot of money to be made in religion; is that what you are trying to protect ?.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. You used the example that the Quran claims to be a book of science. And you correctly said that with this in mind, if its science is proven incorrect, it goes against the Quran. However, this does not mean that the validity of the Bible suffers from the shortfall of the Quran. Would you agree?

If theists present their holy books as "science" and whilst the faiths are related then when one fails they both fail.

Google for "The Quran and Modern Science - Dr. Maurice Bucaille" to see an example of what I mean for the Quran and look at Creationwiki for examples on the Bible side.

I'm not making this up ! People believe in this stuff. You can collect all the options,

do you or do you not agree that the Quran is the word of "Allah"
do you or do you not agree that "Allah" is the same as "God"
do you or do you not agree with the idea of Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge
do you or do you not agree with the idea of Quranic Scientific Foreknowledge
do you or do you not agree that the Bible was inspired by "God"
do you or do you not agree that the idea of Biblical inerracy
....

and so on and make up sets of claims. You get the idea. Certain combinations are so liberal that if I found the bible was written by a pack of drunk monkeys it wouldn't make a difference to the faith whereas anything to do with "science" and certain combinations of results invalidate the deity.

Science, logic and reason do invalidate certain combinations so Fideists retreat to mysticism hoping that science doesn't follow. A naive hope if we look at history of discovery.

[achilles12604]

.....

Immediately fantastic claims are made without evidence then I think is more than reasonable to expect science to question the fantasy.

THIS position, I can accept as valid. It confines science to the realm where science is applicable.

As for many of the claims of different religions, my opinion of them, including much of the bible should be well known around here for the most part. I accept some of them, reject others outright and with most, read them like parables but not literally. If the quran wants to claim to be a book of science, then great. Let it stand on its own claims. But mixing the bible and the quran together isn't really valid unless of course you were comparing and contrasting.

Mixing the bible and the quran together *is* valid. You must have heard of "Abrahamic religions" ! It's not just me who suggests this !.

Truthfully I'm happier that the holy books are separated. That way, with two or more mutually exclusive "gods" and numerous sects within those faith the individual claims of the faiths fall like a house of cards and rest simply on hearsay. As these religions have discovered over time their empty words can only be supported by big sticks as they have no evidence of the truth. And we're not even talking "incontrovertible"...we're talking, NO evidence that someone could reasonably examine.

So I feel that science can offer hope across the board here for people of all faiths. Attempts by some to pigeon hole it to a narrow field to protect religious truths from inspection sound like a cover-up to me. What you guys hidding ?. I know there is a lot of money to be made in religion; is that what you are trying to protect ?.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. You used the example that the Quran claims to be a book of science. And you correctly said that with this in mind, if its science is proven incorrect, it goes against the Quran. However, this does not mean that the validity of the Bible suffers from the shortfall of the Quran. Would you agree?

If theists present their holy books as "science" and whilst the faiths are related then when one fails they both fail.

Google for "The Quran and Modern Science - Dr. Maurice Bucaille" to see an example of what I mean for the Quran and look at Creationwiki for examples on the Bible side.

I'm not making this up ! People believe in this stuff. You can collect all the options,

do you or do you not agree that the Quran is the word of "Allah"
do you or do you not agree that "Allah" is the same as "God"
do you or do you not agree with the idea of Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge
do you or do you not agree with the idea of Quranic Scientific Foreknowledge
do you or do you not agree that the Bible was inspired by "God"
do you or do you not agree that the idea of Biblical inerracy
....

and so on and make up sets of claims. You get the idea. Certain combinations are so liberal that if I found the bible was written by a pack of drunk monkeys it wouldn't make a difference to the faith whereas anything to do with "science" and certain combinations of results invalidate the deity.

Science, logic and reason do invalidate certain combinations so Fideists retreat to mysticism hoping that science doesn't follow. A naive hope if we look at history of discovery.

If Hitler wrote a book about world war 2, and then it was compared to modern history books, it could contain a lot of the same materials. But they certainly would not be the same, have the same message or contain the same opinions. Would disproving Hitler's account of events nullify other history books?

They have the same details,
They are about the same subject.

How does your argument view this comparison?