Religion is science?

[Willum]

As we find out more, we refine our theories, I think this is agreeable.

So let's roll back the clock.
Isn't it reasonable the first scientific theories were that a father-like figure created lightning and made the crops grow?
That guided our fortunes,just like when we were children?

Then as we learn more, we need to explain less with mommy and daddy gods? and more and more with fundamental particles and evolution?

Aren't gods just a psychologically driven scientific model to describe non-psychological phenomenon?

[marco]

I would not label either position 'bright' or 'stupid' though - the wise man knows himself a fool... as long as we recognize our different beliefs, faith as such, we can discuss them without the need for ad hominem arguments.

I was using ignorance in the Socratic sense you hint at here, not as a synonym for stupidity. The idea I was expressing was that we are still in the infancy of knowledge.

In any case, I certainly employed no ad hominem argument, there being no hominem ad quem I was arguing.

And to ride that train of thought a little further.. the God hypothesis was, in turn, the result of some of the earliest critical thinking and skepticism; towards the belief that everything 'just is- by chance, without any particular purpose' a belief which still remains attractive to a significant minority to this day.

The naked idea that things jumped out of nothing certainly seems inferior to the readily comprehensible belief in a Maker or many Makers. The ignorance I referred to included our present lack of understanding; our preoccupation with beginnings and fascination with infinity. The Big Bang, like God, offers some solace to the searching soul.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

And then he discovered it was in fact the Church, not Nature. Go well.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

The idea I was expressing was that we are still in the infancy of knowledge.

Thanks for the clarification, then this 'ignorance' applies at least equally to the other side yes? i.e. "The theory of things jumping out of nothing still attracts attention from some of our brightest minds; such is the current depth of our ignorance'

The Big Bang, like God, offers some solace to the searching soul.

Yes, although it depends what the soul is searching for.. As above, atheists like Hoyle found anything but solace from the idea of a specific creation event, the implications were uncomfortably theistic, and hence utterly 'unscientific'.

Questioning static/eternal models was tantamount to religious pseudoscience, as was questioning classical physics at one point, and as questioning Darwinism still is to many today.

So there is a pattern here, regardless of which world view is ultimately 'true':

Materialism has an inherent obligation; to declare the question essentially resolved with the simplest explanation at hand- squeezing out any 'gaps' for God to fill.
Whereas for a skeptic of atheism, there is no such ideological barrier to conceding ignorance, acknowledging the gaps/flaws in current understanding, & the necessity of more sophistication or 'God's laws' to explain reality.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 11 by Guy Threepwood]

Materialism has an inherent obligation; to declare the question essentially resolved with the simplest explanation at hand- squeezing out any 'gaps' for God to fill. Whereas for a skeptic of atheism, there is no such ideological barrier to conceding ignorance, acknowledging the gaps/flaws in current understanding, & the necessity of more sophistication or 'God's laws' to explain reality.

My biggest problem with comments like this is that it implies that science is incapable of saying "we don't know yet." That isn't the case at all, and most scientists can recognize what falls into this category, and what is essentially "proven." The Big Bang hypothesis is generally consistent with the Standard Model of physics and general relativity, as well as observations on the expanding universe and "running that backwards" in time. But I don't think any physicists claim that it has positively been proven to be the correct description of how this universe came into existence. It is still a hypothesis, albeit with substantial support from observations and known physics. Leaning on that hypothesis as an example of a "creation" event is misguided.

Contrast this to something like Darwinian evolution (or the modern interpretation of that process). This is something that we can directly see and measure here on earth via currently living species and their adaptations, examination of the fossil record, and mountains of genetic work over the past 4-5 decades. It is on far more solid ground than something like the Big Bang, and most scientists acknowledge that it is the correct description of how life diversified on this planet. Hence, it is now called the Theory of Evolution. Many theists, in particular, try to discard it by making false claims about it or simple misunderstanding it. For example, by claiming that it is somehow supposed to explain the ORIGIN of life, and since it doesn't that makes it invalid. Or nonsense about transitional forms not existing, etc.

But my point is that science is perfectly capable of admitting when it doesn't know the answer to something (eg. mechanism for origin of life), or only has a leading hypothesis (eg. the Big Bang), or has sufficient evidence to call something a "theory" (eg. evolution), which is the closest to "fact" that it comes in formal science. I'm sure you'd admit that the heliocentric theory is correct and has been demonstrated in spades, but there are people who still don't believe this, or who argue that the earth is flat, etc. The difference between "god of the gaps", and science, is that science admits it doesn't know and continues to search for answers, offer hypotheses for test, and iterating towards an answer, while attributing something we don't know yet to "god did it" is caving in to an easy explanation and simply giving up.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 12 by DrNoGods]

Thanks for the detailed response!

My biggest problem with comments like this is that it implies that science is incapable of saying "we don't know yet." That isn't the case at all, and most scientists can recognize what falls into this category, and what is essentially "proven." The Big Bang hypothesis is generally consistent with the Standard Model of physics and general relativity, as well as observations on the expanding universe and "running that backwards" in time. But I don't think any physicists claim that it has positively been proven to be the correct description of how this universe came into existence. It is still a hypothesis, albeit with substantial support from observations and known physics.

science is capable of change I agree, but scientists not always- Hoyle refused to accept the BB till his dying day. This was a stark example of science v atheism

As Planck said (paraphrasing) science progresses one funeral at a time- you don't change scientists minds with evidence, you have to wait for new ones to grow up open to the new evidence

Leaning on that hypothesis as an example of a "creation" event is misguided.

That's sort of my point, it was the atheists at the time that viewed it as akin to a Biblical creation event, and rejected it for this reason explicitly. Instead of following the evidence wherever it leads- regardless of the implications

, it is now called the Theory of Evolution. Many theists, in particular, try to discard it by making false claims about it or simple misunderstanding it.

And let me tell you what I think of Darwinists! I think they are overwhelmingly honest, intelligent people, perfectly capable of critical thought, and their beliefs are entirely logical and rational

calling someone with a different position' dishonest and/or stupid' is the Hoyle syndrome again. You are only conceding an ideological bias that forbids you from ever changing your mind, no matter the scientific evidence, because you then become all the names you called other people.

For example, by claiming that it is somehow supposed to explain the ORIGIN of life, and since it doesn't that makes it invalid. Or nonsense about transitional forms not existing,

We agree it cannot explain life's origin.. and I agree with this guy:

' ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.' David Raup- Curator of Chicago Field museum

But what's the very best example of you can think of, of evolution actually being directly, scientifically observed to have taken place?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 13 by Guy Threepwood]

calling someone with a different position' dishonest and/or stupid' is the Hoyle syndrome again. You are only conceding an ideological bias that forbids you from ever changing your mind, no matter the scientific evidence, because you then become all the names you called other people.

I didn't call anyone dishonest or stupid. Many people simply don't understand the ToE and as a result they make erroneous claims about it to try and discredit it (such as claiming it must explain the origin of life, then declaring it wrong because it doesn't). Not sure why you twisted my comment about someone misunderstanding something as equivalent to calling them stupid or dishonest. I made no such statement.

And how did you then arrive at an even more erroneous conclusion that this conceded an ideological bias that "forbids me from ever changing my mind, no matter the scientific evidence."? This is the exact opposite of what my main point was, which is that science (and scientists) continually changes its "mind" when new evidence points to an alternate or improved description.

You evidently completely misunderstood my original comments, or intentionally misrepresented them in order to make the (erroneous) statement about ideological bias.

But what's the very best example of you can think of, of evolution actually being directly, scientifically observed to have taken place?

There are far too many examples to try and summarize in this forum, and I don't know if I could pick out a "best" one. My favorite is probably the clear evidence from the fossil record and genetics work that modern humans did, in fact, evolve from a great ape ancestor through a very "bushy" process taking place over some 6 million years. We can see the progression and branching in the fossil record, and have sequenced entire genomes of at least one of our predecessors (Neanderthals) to prove our connection to them. All the pieces of the puzzle are not yet in place, but plenty are to make the fundamental conclusion that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier Homo species. This is no longer an unproven hypothesis.

But the only way to actually observe evolution in real time is to use a species that reproduces far faster than humans do, because it can take many thousands, or tens of thousands, of generations for evolutionary changes to take place. And this has been done, for example (just a few links from a quick web search):

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... real-time/

https://www.the-scientist.com/multimedi ... time-31599

https://phys.org/news/2016-02-species-evolve-real.html

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/ ... -fast-lane

https://www.mpg.de/9804810/evolution-hiv-adaption

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... speciation

http://zeenews.india.com/news/science/s ... 97552.html

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 14 by DrNoGods]

So again you dismiss any alternative as simply a 'misunderstanding' -based on 'theistic bias'etc rather than an alternate possibility . Whatever word you use for that, it's simply an attack on the person's intellect rather than a substantive scientific argument either way. Feel free to point out anything you think I 'don't understand'!

Again we agree, ToE does not explain how life originated, and Darwin was not trying to address that. In his day a cell was a blob of indistinct protoplasm, they could not dream of how sophisticated it was, and hence how big a problem it presented to the simplistic Victorian age/ naturalist model of reality at the time.

But the theory does propose from there on that all life evolved from a 'bacteria-like' single cell into a human being, with billions of necessary modifications originating by pure blind chance.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The 'best evidence'/ 1st link you provided demonstrates bacteria evolving into.. bacteria.. to me that falls a teeny bit short of demonstrating the claim !

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 15 by Guy Threepwood]

So again you dismiss any alternative as simply a 'misunderstanding' -based on 'theistic bias'etc rather than an alternate possibility . Whatever word you use for that, it's simply an attack on the person's intellect rather than a substantive scientific argument either way. Feel free to point out anything you think I 'don't understand'!

What am I dismissing? WHat "alternative" are you talking about? I simply stated that some people don't understand the ToE, and as a result they make erroneous claims to try and discredit it, such as claiming that it must explain the origin of life or it is invalid. How is that dismissing something?. Are you claiming that people don't use this tactic to discredit evolution?

You are creating this false narrative that I am attacking another person's intellect by stating that they don't understand something, then claim that I am dismissing some alternative that has not even been discussed. So I'd point out that you don't seem to understand the point I was making to begin with (ie. that people who don't understand ToE often make erroneous claims about it with the goal of discrediting it). That is not dismissing anything, but simply stating a fact. Or are you referring to ToE as a whole which is an entirely different argument?

But the theory does propose from there on that all life evolved from a 'bacteria-like' single cell into a human being, with billions of necessary modifications originating by pure blind chance.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes ... and that has been provided, in spades, for the last 150 years or so. That is exactly why ToE is the accepted process by which single-celled organisms evolved into primates including human beings over several billion years. If you want to just ignore all of this evidence and claim ToE is not a valid theory because of some religious bias, then you are not alone. That is standard procedure for many theists, while others have recognized that ancient ideas on how humans came into being are wrong. And "pure blind chance" ignores the process of natural selection, which is what drives the "billions of modifications." Another standard tactic of theists to phrase things in a way that attempts to trivialize the process or make it sound impossible. Natural selection can't be ignored when discussing ToE, because it is a fundamental part of it.

The 'best evidence'/ 1st link you provided demonstrates bacteria evolving into.. bacteria.. to me that falls a teeny bit short of demonstrating the claim !

Well, your comment that prompted my response was this:

"But what's the very best example of you can think of, of evolution actually being directly, scientifically observed to have taken place?
"
Where in that comment is any reference to examples of evolution into a different species? There is none ... you asked for an example of evolution actually being directly observed, and I provided some references that show this. Then you reply that you actually wanted something completely different than what you specifically asked for initially.

If you don't believe the ToE is a valid theory, and wish to ignore the last 150 years of overwhelming evidence that supports it, that is your choice. But twisting words and creating false narratives from that doesn't support your argument in any way. ToE has been proven to be a valid theory, and the huge majority of the scientific community accept this to be the case. Religious objections don't change that fact even slightly.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 16 by DrNoGods]

Yes ... and that has been provided, in spades, for the last 150 years or so. That is exactly why ToE is the accepted process by which single-celled organisms evolved into primates including human beings over several billion years. If you want to just ignore all of this evidence and claim ToE is not a valid theory because of some religious bias, then you are not alone. That is standard procedure for many theists,

^ you made my point for me- like many other people it was the flaws in Darwinian evolution that eventually led to my skepticism of the atheism I was brought up with, not the other way around. So that's the false assumption I'm talking about, again it just avoids any substantive argument.

I assume you are perfectly capable of critical thought, at the very least I find this assumption usually makes for a more interesting discussion that trading accusations of bias

while others have recognized that ancient ideas on how humans came into being are wrong. And "pure blind chance" ignores the process of natural selection, which is what drives the "billions of modifications." Another standard tactic of theists to phrase things in a way that attempts to trivialize the process or make it sound impossible. Natural selection can't be ignored when discussing ToE, because it is a fundamental part of it.

natural selection of what? modifications made by pure blind chance.

natural selection - that a significantly superior design will tend to out-perform, outlast- outnumber an inferior one...? goes entirely without saying. That's why there are more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pinto's.

natural selection is not 'ignored' it's simply an unavoidable, obvious given.

The only tricky question then is how these superior designs arise - before they can be selected for their superiority- ToE posits pure blind chance, random copying errors as the answer to this crucial question.

At the very least, this part cannot be taken for granted, we cannot replicate macro evolution through selection of purely random mutations

150 years of overwhelming evidence

I'm just asking to see some of that if I may. bacteria evolving into bacteria is not evidence of macro evolution in action is it, quite the opposite.

Was there something else you feel is compelling evidence for it?

the huge majority of the scientific community accept this

That argument would have put you on the side of steady state, piltdown man & phrenology- which us 'ignorant masses' were skeptical of also- so historically you'd have a better chance siding with us if lacking for your own argument

But can we not at least agree, that the whole point of science is NOT having to take someone else's word for it?

What evidence do YOU think makes Darwinian evolution so convincing?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 17 by Guy Threepwood]

... it was the flaws in Darwinian evolution ...

And what are those flaws? Are they enough to discredit the theory? Evidently not because it remains the most accepted and most evidenced theory for how life diversified on this planet. People who have not accepted this in 2018 are either sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the evidence because it conflicts with their religious beliefs (I'd guess that is the majority of the nay-sayers), or they simply have not studied it enough to be equipped to make a decision one way or the other.

natural selection of what? modifications made by pure blind chance.

Modifications (mutations) may happen by pure blind chance, but the ones that persist and get transferred through generations are the ones that give the animal a benefit of some kind, however small initially, in survival and reproduction. If enough mutations occur a new species can result, and eventually a new "kind" as the theists like to call them (eg. fish evolving into amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, etc.). The "force" that caused fish to evolve into amphibians was a benefit to being able to survive out of water, and natural selection favored mutations that eventually enabled this via the development of lungs, legs, etc. This is not a "pure blind chance" process, even if the initial mutations are. Why do some cave dwelling fish that once had eyes, lose them after thousands of generations in a dark environment? It is not that some pure blind chance process eliminated them, but that being no longer needed the "cost" to maintain eyes in terms of energy and internal structures was a waste, and they "evolved away." Come back in a few thousand years and humans may not have wisdom teeth, or an appendix, for the same reason.

At the very least, this part cannot be taken for granted, we cannot replicate macro evolution through selection of purely random mutations.

But nature can, and does, and this can be confirmed by analysis of the fossil record and via genetic studies. What you call "macro" evolution does not exist. It is a term coined by theists to separate small evolutionary changes (which many of them believe in) and larger evolutionary changes. But there is no such thing ... enough small changes result in a large change, as observed in nature.

I'm just asking to see some of that if I may. bacteria evolving into bacteria is not evidence of macro evolution in action is it, quite the opposite.

Again, you didn't ask for any evidence of "macro" evolution in your original question. That only came up when you didn't like the examples given for evolution being observed in real time. But "macro" evolution is not a thing ... it is an artificial delineation theists have created to, yet again, try to discredit ToE.

That argument would have put you on the side of steady state, piltdown man & phrenology- which us 'ignorant masses' were skeptical of also- so historically you'd have a better chance siding with us if lacking for your own argument.

And what happened with Piltdown man? Scientists persisted in investigating the story and found it to be a hoax. That is how science works. What you're describing is a situation where everyone just accepted the story at face value and still believed it, without any scrutiny (ie. like religion). But that didn't happen.

What evidence do YOU think makes Darwinian evolution so convincing?

The 150 years of evidence and tens of thousands of published articles in peer-reviewed journals that support it. There is simply no other explanation available today that comes anything close to explaining how life diversified on this planet, and the genetics work over the last 40 years just confirms what the fossil record had already shown. Evolution works as a theory, and nothing else has come close to supplanting it yet.

[marco]

So there is a pattern here, regardless of which world view is ultimately 'true':

Materialism has an inherent obligation; to declare the question essentially resolved with the simplest explanation at hand- squeezing out any 'gaps' for God to fill.
Whereas for a skeptic of atheism, there is no such ideological barrier to conceding ignorance, acknowledging the gaps/flaws in current understanding, & the necessity of more sophistication or 'God's laws' to explain reality.

You are reminding me to take a neutral stance, accepting ignorance on both sides. I've no problem with that. But then you suggest that the contest is between accepting a God explanation and accepting some present theory as though, if the theory is wrong, God is right.


My position is that we are too young in our science to place correct answers on the table; the answers we supply may well be as imperfect as inventing a giant supporting the Earth or begetting it.

There are other ideas that as yet are too abstruse to be investigated, but they may well be correct. In any case, your assumption that a moment of instantaneous creation, whatever that means, implies the existence of an intelligent agency of that creation is made because you assume that the consequences of lifeless matter forming a soup would not give rise to intelligent life. It seems so; but the probability of things happening need only be a non-zero fraction, however small, for the event to occur, since we are dealing with something close to infinite time, where an infinite number of failures may have occurred.... given time has meaning.

But we don't need to argue in this way, though as a mathematician I see no problem here. We can simply say: "We don"t know." Then take tea with Socrates or hemlock.