Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

[osgart]

I think it's addressed indirectly. Establishing that one factor (e.g. random mutation) explains some aspect of observation implies that all other factors (e.g. Lamarckian "progression," the intervention of intelligent deities, the colour of the scientist's hat, etc.) is not playing a role in that aspect of observation.

I don't buy that conclusion. But I do see how Ockham's razor leads to that conclusion if you are a materialist already.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Whos 'afraid ' ? Or are they skeptical of it ,and afraid that its misleading. I personally love science . When its science . Repeatable and observable.

Personally i have come across many religious people from different paths who are "afraid" of science because they think science are there to damage or disprove their religion.
It is it is by my own interaction with different religious people i heard about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not reproducible? Lots of people think they observe things that can't be corroborated. In what sense can we call such observations empirical facts?

Because some things really do happen only once.

Not all science happens in an Erlenmeyer flask in a lab. Sciences that study past events (e.g. paleontology and cosmology) are still science.

Yes, having multiple lines of corroborating evidence is nice, and it certainly improves the reliability of conclusions, but these disciplines are still "science" without this.

 

[John1.12]

Personally i have come across many religious people from different paths who are "afraid" of science because they think science are there to damage or disprove their religion.
It is it is by my own interaction with different religious people i heard about it.

Fair enough . It comes down to world views .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't buy that conclusion. But I do see how Ockham's razor leads to that conclusion if you are a materialist already.

Well, if some outside factor is affecting reality in a measurable way, we would see it in the measurement.

... and if it's not affecting reality in a measurable way, it's indistinguishable from imaginary.

 

[osgart]

Well, if some outside factor is affecting reality in a measurable way, we would see it in the measurement.

... and if it's not affecting reality in a measurable way, it's indistinguishable from imaginary.

It's impossible to measure intelligence creating life in nature. DNA could be a purposed program but there is no test for such things.

No scientist alive can objectively test for consciousness, yet subjectively there it is. So there are intrinsic qualities to being an animal. Who's to say that more intrinsic qualities outside of living creatures does not exist?

 

[John1.12]

Personally i have come across many religious people from different paths who are "afraid" of science because they think science are there to damage or disprove their religion.
It is it is by my own interaction with different religious people i heard about it.

The more a person understands science the less ' threatened ' they would be .
Now I don't agree with everything Ray teaches but he does make some interesting points .

 

[John1.12]

Maybe this question comes as a "shock" to someone that i ask since i am known for not trusting science
(meaning i am not afraid of science, just not see it as a valid way to answer certain questions)

But here we go...
1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?
2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?
3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?
4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

I'm afraid when scientists deal with these sorts of questions without God .
'Has the stuff of the universe always existed. Is the universe eternal?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's impossible to measure intelligence creating life in nature. DNA could be a purposed program but there is no test for such things.

I generally find that if we're precise enough in how we define our terms, the way to measure a thing often becomes apparent.

So what do you mean by "intelligence"? Please be specific.

No scientist alive can objectively test for consciousness, yet subjectively there it is.

That must be news to the researchers who developed this test for consciousness.

So there are intrinsic qualities to being an animal. Who's to say that more intrinsic qualities outside of living creatures does not exist?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

[osgart]

I generally find that if we're precise enough in how we define our terms, the way to measure a thing often becomes apparent.

So what do you mean by "intelligence"? Please be specific.


That must be news to the researchers who developed this test for consciousness.


I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Well intelligence forms its own purposes and goals for one.

All their tests are for brain mind correlations. But the contents of a thought, and the experience of self is never directly testable.

 

[exchemist]

Because some things really do happen only once.

Not all science happens in an Erlenmeyer flask in a lab. Sciences that study past events (e.g. paleontology and cosmology) are still science.

Yes, having multiple lines of corroborating evidence is nice, and it certainly improves the reliability of conclusions, but these disciplines are still "science" without this.

This is not true. All science involves reproducible observation. That goes for palaeontology and cosmology as much as for chemistry or physics. Fossils can be observed by different people to corroborate the details of the observation. Different people can look at data from different telescopes to corroborate astrophysical measurements. The observations are not made in the past. They are made in the present. It is the theory built upon them that is a theory of past events. But that theory is not a fact: it's a theory. Only the observations, suitably corroborated, are empirical facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well intelligence forms its own purposes and goals for one.

What do you mean by "forms its own purposes and goals"?

All their tests are for brain mind correlations. But the contents of a thought, and the experience of self is never directly testable.

You didn't ask for a test for the contents of a thought; you asked for a test for consciousness.

 

[exchemist]

Whos 'afraid ' ? Or are they skeptical of it ,and afraid that its misleading. I personally love science . When its science . Repeatable and observable.

If it's only the repeatable and observable bits you like, then I doubt that you love science or understand it.

The reproducible observations are the raw material. What makes science a powerful way of understanding nature is the theories constructed to account for the observations and to predict what further observations to expect. Without the theories it would be just insufferably dull data collection.

 

[Yazata]

Maybe this question comes as a "shock" to someone that i ask since i am known for not trusting science
(meaning i am not afraid of science, just not see it as a valid way to answer certain questions)

I'm not a religious person. Certainly not in any 'Abrahamic' theistic sense. I don't fear science. (I was a biological science undergraduate before doing a second bachelors and an MA in philosophy.) But I guess that I am starting to fear how science is increasingly being turned into a cultural authority whose supposed revelations laypeople are expected to uncritically believe purely on faith, on pain of being condemned as "deniers" or whatever the epithet is. I fear that "science" is taking over the place once occupied by the medieval church in contemporary intellectual life.

But here we go...
1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

I'm not sure that I agree with the premise. But to the extent that it may be true, it's probably because those who presume to speak for science in contemporary discourse (who most often aren't scientists themselves) are using science as a club with which to attack something that the religious person values. It's like Pavlov's dog, if you are attacked over and over by guys wearing green shirts, you will start to fear attack whenever a guy in a green shirt approaches.

2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?

I'd say 'no'. For one thing, proofs only exist in mathematics and logic. (And even there rest upon human intuitions of things like logical implication.) Science doesn't deal in proof or disproof. That being said, science may be able generate alternative explanations for various things that some religious people have traditionally interpreted as divine traces in the natural order. Theories of natural selection instead of theories of intelligent design for example.

3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?

Of course not. But that being said, it might suggest that there's no good reason to believe in God.

4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

I'm not sure how science could discover God's existence. How would science distinguish between a super-powered space alien and a god? If our reality turned out to be a Matrix style simulation, the creator of the simulation might be omnipotent in our virtual realm. If science could somehow discover such a thing, would the master of the Matrix truly be divine? What kind of scientific instrument can measure and quantify Holiness?

 

[John1.12]

If it's only the repeatable and observable bits you like, then I doubt that you love science or understand it.

The reproducible observations are the raw material. What makes science a powerful way of understanding nature is the theories constructed to account for the observations and to predict what further observations to expect. Without the theories it would be just insufferably dull data collection.

Your questions don't fit my situation . I've been an atheist longer than I've been saved .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ufh! I thought that silliness ended decades ago.

Nope. I've heard they allow beer on Sundays since I moved, and places that serve food can serve alcohol, but that's only within the last few years (and after decades of public pressure) and you still can't buy liquor and spirits.
It is officially the last state in the Union to forbid all alcohol sales on Sunday, and they kept it that way well into the 21st century.
Just imagine how backwards and stuck in the past most that state still is.

 

[exchemist]

Your questions don't fit my situation . I've been an atheist longer than I've been saved .

I haven't asked any questions.

You claim to love science and I don't think you do, based on your comments.

 

[osgart]

What do you mean by "forms its own purposes and goals"?


You didn't ask for a test for the contents of a thought; you asked for a test for consciousness.

If there is intelligence then there is the capacity to form purposes and goals and then carry out processes to achieve those purposes and goals.

 

[Jose Fly]

1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

I think it's for a few reasons. In today's modern society, science has replaced religion as the primary arbiter of truth. We see this reflected in advertising (e.g. 9 out of 10 doctors agree, clinically proven to...) and politics (decisions wait until the science is in). The days when religious decrees and appeals to scriptures were widely persuasive are largely over.

Also, science has a nasty habit of telling you things you may not want to be true.

So the fear is that science will be effective in persuading people away from one's religion.

2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?

In general, no.

3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?

Most gods, by definition, are outside the realms of proof, evidence, and testing.

4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

We'll let you know when that happens.

 

[osgart]

What do you mean by "forms its own purposes and goals"?


You didn't ask for a test for the contents of a thought; you asked for a test for consciousness.

Thoughts, and the experience of self are part of consciousness. Nevertheless consciousness is defined in different ways.