The contributions of Religion to sciences

[Robert.Evans]

Lots of science has been (and is being) done by people who are religious but that doesn’t mean their religion played a positive or negative role in it. In general people are more complex than that

And that just about says it all I think.

 

[McBell]

Point being, Dawkins can never change his mind no matter the evidence, it would simply be too embarrassing for him.

You have not made a point.
You have made a bold empty claim.
Furthermore, you have not shown he is wrong.
Nor have you shown evolution is wrong.

You have made numerous bold empty claims, but that is all you have done.

To expand on Planck's point

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

ROTFLMAO
How is it you think religion has survived for so long?
It is not like anyone has shown god (any of them) exists.

We both know what the central premise of 'classical' evolution is today, that life got here by a purely natural process, following no design instructions, just simple rules of random mutation and natural selection.

Still beating this dead horse?
How many times before this becomes a bold faced lie?

Kinda like stars and entire galaxies were once believed to be able to form out of simple laws of gravity and momentum

I cannot prove that a single cell cannot accidentally become a man, through millions of significant lucky improvements, but it's certainly nothing we can observe, test, measure.
Creative intelligence, purpose, design has an explanatory power nature alone never can.
I don't have the truth, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs-

so you have seen god create the universe, right?
I mean, if your "argument" is that evolution was not seen there fore it cannot be, then why the double standard free pass for your beliefs?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except for evolution , which is "fact" apparently.

And global warming which is 'undeniable'!

 

[McBell]

Except for evolution , which is "fact" apparently.

You should really try reading for comprehension.
Other wise you will look desperate.

 

[Robert.Evans]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Dawkins

Point being, Dawkins can never change his mind no matter the evidence, it would simply be too embarrassing for him.

To expand on Planck's point

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

We both know what the central premise of 'classical' evolution is today, that all species of life got here by a purely natural process, following no design instructions, just simple rules of random mutation and natural selection.

Kinda like stars and entire galaxies were once believed to be able to form out of simple laws of gravity and momentum

I cannot prove that a single cell cannot accidentally become a man, through millions of significant lucky improvements, but it's certainly nothing we can observe, test, measure.
Creative intelligence, purpose, design has an explanatory power nature alone never can.
I don't have the truth, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs-

The point is I think that it is easier to see consciousness evolving problems than physical matter- least that's how itlooks to me. A pile of bricks can quickly be sorted in the mind, but not so quick by hand. So I think that matter on its own fails.

 

[Revoltingest]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Dawkins
Point being, Dawkins can never change his mind no matter the evidence, it would simply be too embarrassing for him.

I don't defend Dawkins.
He is one individual with his opinions.

To expand on Planck's point
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

This claim sounds more clever whimsy than scientific thought.
Do you believe that GR is the best theory about space time solely because its opponents have died off?

We both know what the central premise of 'classical' evolution is today, that all species of life got here by a purely natural process, following no design instructions, just simple rules of random mutation and natural selection.
Kinda like stars and entire galaxies were once believed to be able to form out of simple laws of gravity and momentum
I cannot prove that a single cell cannot accidentally become a man, through millions of significant lucky improvements, but it's certainly nothing we can observe, test, measure.
Creative intelligence, purpose, design has an explanatory power nature alone never can.
I don't have the truth, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs-

It has no explanatory power in the sense that it cannot be tested (ie, falsified).
To invoke Pauli.....
It's not only not right, it's not even wrong.

 

[Robert.Evans]

And global warming which is 'undeniable'!

When I see GW mentioned on TV it is just that, warming. But in the papers, apparantly it's been cooling for over ten years now. Who's right I wonder?

 

[Robert.Evans]

How is it you think religion has survived for so long?

Perhaps it's because it's true...din din dinnn

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought TOE was Theory of Everything?

I hadn't run across that reading of "TOE" before.
Learn sumthin new every day.

Just how many toes are there??

Well, I have......

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't defend Dawkins.
He is one individual with his opinions.

You don't but he speaks for evolution- he is the foremost evolutionary biologist, best selling author on it, he speaks for the belief more than anyone.

This claim sounds more clever whimsy than scientific thought.
Do you believe that GR is the best theory about space time solely because its opponents have died off?

Its not a black and white rule, just part of the equation, scientists are human beings- with pride, passion, emotional connections to their ideas.

It has no explanatory power in the sense that it cannot be tested (ie, falsified).
To invoke Pauli.....
It's not only not right, it's not even wrong.

A creator of the universe is perfectly falsifiable, just show the universe to be static, eternal, steady state, part of a cyclical big crunch..

no creation = no creator.

For utterly unfalsifiable- we have many multiverse theories, life spontaneously arising in outer space for no particular reason and landing here on comets-

single cells spontaneously acquiring significant improvements till they become sentient beings. Life on other planets

 

[metis]

Denying both evolution and the fact that we are now in a state of "global warming" is similar to questioning whether there's a sun because one won't look up. One does not "believe" in either, as either they accept the reality or they don't. Religious beliefs can work both ways, namely to reinforce reality or to blind one to it, and unfortunately many use much of the latter, and we can find some who fall into that trap in all religions.

Evolution is just plain old common sense-- all material things change over time, and genes are material things. Global warming is real since it is not based on projections but is based on real measurements that has been collected worldwide for over 200 years now.

OTOH, religious narratives are much more difficult to substantiate, such as how can we actually know if Moses talked with God on Mt. Sinai or if Jesus actually walked on water? And yet so many accept one of both of these events and yet virtually discount evolution and global warming. Go figger.

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion opens the doors to exploring the greatest depths of reality.
It frees science from the restraints of always striving for a 'final explanation' that would best appear to 'make God redundant' in any particular field. e.g. static universe, classical physics, big crunch, gradualist evolution

I think this is primarily why most scientific progress has come from skeptics of atheism. They are free to look beyond the superficial explanation de jour.

A marvelous post.
Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't but he speaks for evolution- he is the foremost evolutionary biologist, best selling author on it, he speaks for the belief more than anyone.

Science has no prophet who speaks for it.
Dawkins is just a guy who has contributed to science, but he can only speak for himself.
He has no more authority than do I.
And I'm more fetching than he.

Its not a black and white rule, just part of the equation, scientists are human beings- with pride, passion, emotional connections to their ideas.

Even Dawkins is human.

A creator of the universe is perfectly falsifiable, just show the universe to be static, eternal, steady state, part of a cyclical big crunch..
no creation = no creator.

This doesn't specify a rigorous method of falsifying the claim there is a supernatural creator.

For utterly unfalsifiable- we have many multiverse theories, life spontaneously arising in outer space for no particular reason and landing here on comets-
single cells spontaneously acquiring significant improvements till they become sentient beings. Life on other planets

Speculation is fun, & it's where good theories originate.
Not all such musings become mainstream testable theories.
This isn't really a problem or an inconsistency with the scientific method.

 

[paarsurrey]

Many issues raised.
Here we go.......

"Evolution" typically refers to 2 different things.....
1) An observable change in species over great time. This rises to the level of being factual because it is data.
2) An explanation behind this process of change. This is a theory.
Interestingly, even #2 rises to the level of factuality when applied to biomimetic systems engineering, eg, genetic algorithms.

Dawkins has some basis for his certainty about evolution (#2 type).
There really is no competing theory which is testable or has explanatory power.
The commonly proffered alternatives (eg, YEC, ID) are merely ad hoc rescues for various religions.

Most atheists are also skeptical of atheism.
I'm typical in that I cannot prove there are no gods, therefore they could exist (even though I don't detect them).
I don't have THE TRUTH....just my speculations.

Another marvelous post from you.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What is the point? And, considering Science means "to know" then many things of the past could be called early versions of science and science knowledge.

One wants to employ a path to escape ?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Dawkins
Point being, Dawkins can never change his mind no matter the evidence, it would simply be too embarrassing for him.
To expand on Planck's point
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
We both know what the central premise of 'classical' evolution is today, that all species of life got here by a purely natural process, following no design instructions, just simple rules of random mutation and natural selection.
Kinda like stars and entire galaxies were once believed to be able to form out of simple laws of gravity and momentum
I cannot prove that a single cell cannot accidentally become a man, through millions of significant lucky improvements, but it's certainly nothing we can observe, test, measure.
Creative intelligence, purpose, design has an explanatory power nature alone never can.
I don't have the truth, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs-

Marvelous post.
Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science has no prophet who speaks for it.
Dawkins is just a guy who has contributed to science, but he can only speak for himself.
He has no more authority than do I.
And I'm more fetching than he.

Yes, I think I'd sooner buy a used car from you!

As far as prophets, science should not have any, but in practical reality- Al Gore, Hawking, Dawkins do not operate in that capacity?

This doesn't specify a rigorous method of falsifying the claim there is a supernatural creator.

Had the universe turned out to match any of those models' predictions of non-creation, I'd happily accept the explicit implication of it; no creation = no creator.

I'm happy to accept the opposite implication also, that of observed reality

Speculation is fun, & it's where good theories originate.
Not all such musings become mainstream testable theories.
This isn't really a problem or an inconsistency with the scientific method.

I'd agree, though point being- there is nothing particularly less falsifiable- hence scientific, about God or Genesis or ID- than today's atheist creation stories of the universe and life itself.

We're all strange believers of something

 

[McBell]

Perhaps it's because it's true...din din dinnn

Really?
It is true?
Then why all the changes to this supposed "truth"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Marvelous post.
Regards

Thank you. I'll use that to quit for now while I'm ahead!

 

[McBell]

As far as prophets, science should not have any, but in practical reality- Al Gore, Hawking, Dawkins do not operate in that capacity?

Only to those, like yourself, who are trying real hard to make science into something it is not...religion.

Had the universe turned out to match any of those models' predictions of non-creation, I'd happily accept the explicit implication of it; no creation = no creator.

I suspect this is an outright lie.
For you have nothing but your wishful thinking that god exists, let alone created anything.

I'm happy to accept the opposite implication also, that of observed reality

Yet you have not observed god creating life....