Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 3,951
I totally agree. Read many of his books and enjoy it when he speaks.
Richard dawkins
- Thread starter NormanPorkinson
- Start date
I totally agree. Read many of his books and enjoy it when he speaks.
The point that I was actually trying to make is that this question is unanswerable, whether by you with your extensive but, as you have admitted, limited knowledge of evolution, or by the greatest scientist on the planet.
Science is a wonderful tool. It can predict a huge amount of things accurately, and give great theories as to why something happens as it does. As people have said earlier in the thread, I am sure that science will, one day, provide us with theories for everything (including how the earth was "born", perhaps even why we are here), which work successfully as predictive tools without needing the input of a god or any other supernatural being. It is incredibly useful in that it can say "if I feed person x tablet y, it will cure him of disease z". Religion does not have (or try to have) this predictive capacity.
Yet nobody can (or, I would argue, ever will be able to) say that the way science says things happens is, in actuality, correct. Science can predict that the tablet will cure the person, and will tell us, excluding religion, why this is the case. It will use Occam's Razor and come to the simplest possible conclusion. This does not mean, though, that the tablet has fought off the illness by boosting white blood cells, for example. It could have worked like that. But perhaps feeding a person the tablet puts through a call to god, who boosts the person's white blood cells in order that the disease may be healed.
My point is this. Science is incredibly effective. It can tell us how things work, and predict what will happen when certain stimuli are applied to certain objects. It can successfully rule out the need for a deity. What it is not possible for it to do though, is rule out the existence of a deity. The most that it can do is to show a deity to be superfluous.
This is not a criticism of science. As I have said all along, science is excellent at what it does, and does all that it was designed to do very effectively. However, the question of what actually occurs, and of religion, are simply outside its domain. Science cannot disprove its religion. the most that it can do is to show that god is not needed. There is a vast difference here, and it is one which is underestimated by a lot of people.
Ahh - Ockham's Razor... I've seen it invoked time and time again to back up claims that scientific explanation does away with the 'need' for God as creator. When I eventually found out about its origins it made me chuckle.
For those that don't know, William of Ockham was a late medieval Christian theologian. The original application of Ockham's Razor was to help weed out some of the superfluous paraphernalia that had been added to the Christian doctrine of justification during the early middle ages. It's just another example of how indebted modern science is to theology and philosophy for the methods it uses.
For those that don't know, William of Ockham was a late medieval Christian theologian. The original application of Ockham's Razor was to help weed out some of the superfluous paraphernalia that had been added to the Christian doctrine of justification during the early middle ages. It's just another example of how indebted modern science is to theology and philosophy for the methods it uses.
Last edited:
As somebody who did a philosophy degree, I fully appreciate just how indebted science is to philosophy and Ockham's razor (and am well aware of it's origins). I'm not sure if your post was directed towards me or not, but if anything my post was in defense of religion. As I said, science can show (using Ockham's razor, one of the scientific process's most basic tenets) that God does not need to exist, but it can't show that God doesn't exist.
The origin of Ockham's razor does not make it any more or less valid in its use.
I'm trying to find a great video of a 'theologian' (I hate the word) employing Ockham's razor by saying that because our universe had a finite beginning, that proves that it had a 'creator', i.e. God. He then went on to say about how we have the Trinity, and thus, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before someone says that it was a crackpot Christian that can't be taken seriously (well, in all fairness, you'd be right), but that was uttered by William Lane Craig, arguably the finest Christian apologist on the debate circuit today.
Could you give me an example of a method modern science uses today, to which it owes to thousand year old religious practices? Ockham's razor, today, does nothing whatsoever to help the case for a religious God, it does the absolute opposite.
I haven't heard this argument, but I assume it's something like this:
1. If the universe has a finite beginning, and as nothing can scientifically come from nothing, something must have started it.
2. Ockham's razor suggests that the simplest possible solution to a problem is the best one.
3. God is the simplest solution to the start of the universe, as implying his existence is the closest possible world in which the universe could exist.
4. God exists.
As I say, I haven't heard the argument, but the above has glaring flaws.
There are three bones of contention with this.
1. Point 1 does not stand up if science can explain the universe. As Steven Hawking showed the other day, there are possible scientific explanations.
2. Point 3 is debateable. Would the closest possible world be one in which God exists, or one in which something could come from nothing?
3. There is a huge leap from "God is the simplest possible solution" (which is shown validly if not truly by the above) to "God exists" (which is not). As I stated in my post above this one, Ockham's razor cannot be used by science to disprove religion. Nor, however, can it be used to prove religion. The most it can do is to tell us the most useful theory to move forward with.
I disagree. Whilst I'm not going to put my name to the idea that Ockham's razor can 'disprove religion', I'm going to same that it comes damn close to showing the supernatural claims of religion to be absolutely false.
Ockham's razor cannot disprove the concept of a creator, but that's not what you have to argue if you're a Christian. If you're going to be a Christian in this debate, not only do you have to know, for certain, that the universe was created by a higher intelligence, you have to know roughly when this happened (obviously Christianity varies on this point), but most importantly of all, they must claim to know to what end the universe was created. You don't think that Ockham's razor puts more weight on one side of the argument, than the other?
This obviously contrasts with my position, as an atheist, when I can quite happily say that I have absolutely no idea what created the universe.
Ockham's razor cannot disprove the concept of a creator, but that's not what you have to argue if you're a Christian. If you're going to be a Christian in this debate, not only do you have to know, for certain, that the universe was created by a higher intelligence, you have to know roughly when this happened (obviously Christianity varies on this point), but most importantly of all, they must claim to know to what end the universe was created. You don't think that Ockham's razor puts more weight on one side of the argument, than the other?
This obviously contrasts with my position, as an atheist, when I can quite happily say that I have absolutely no idea what created the universe.
The belief that God created the Universe doesn't mean you need to prove when, or how or indeed to even claim to know these things. Belief is a statement of Faith, not Fact.
I'm not a Christian, either in this debate or otherwise. My point is that science cannot prove the non-existence of God, that the most evidence it provides is that God does not need to exist (but this is also evidenced by belief in fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, and a whole load more, so science isn't doing anything special here), and that nothing can prove the validity of God, fairies, or science when applied to an actual world.
Could you provide me with an argument to substantiate your claim that science "comes damn close to showing the supernatural claims of religion to be absolutely false"?
Belief is not a statement of faith, necessarily, faith is a statement of faith. Christianity preaches that 'God' created the universe, that it happened in the order of a few thousand to tens of thousands of years ago, and that it knows to what end we are on earth. I'm sorry, but if you're going to call yourself a Christian, you have the obligation to do so, and if you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, or that he was born of a virgin, or that he rose from the dead, then (and I'll say it again) you are in no meaningful sense of the word, a Christian.
Sure, and who could disagree with that? But I'm not going to say that science will never be able to disprove the existence of God, or perhaps even, heaven forbid, prove the existence of God.
Last edited:
Lol. What would be your reason to call yourself a Christian then, sir?
Sorry, I wasn't implying that you were a Christian, but if one was to call oneself a Christian, why would they do so. Your reason is faith... Fair enough, but faith in what? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Bertrand Russell's Teapot? Or Jesus' divinity?
A lot of people disagree with that, just look at the last few pages of this thread (and others like it).
Science is a predictive tool. It is used to look at evidence, and extrapolate from that evidence the likelihood of what will happen in the future with the same stimuli. Pill x fed to person y will cure disease z.
However, science proves (and can never prove) nothing about what ACTUALLY happens. For all we know, God could facilitate the person's cure once he is fed the pill. We can break this down into minutiae - science would say that the person heals due to a rise in white blood cell count, religion would say that God caused the rise in white blood cell count. There is no way of saying who is right, and this is why science can never disprove or prove God - it is not trying to and will never be trying to. It is "only" (and I use that term lightly - science is an exceptional tool) predicting what will happen and offering a possible explanation.
Weren't a group of Atheistic Christians pointed out earlier in the thread?
Christain has to be faith in the bible.
Why is a different and very personal reason. Often from life experience, due to what people have gone though, seen or felt.
Lots of people give evidence for their belive as dolph would says it's not scientific evidence but it is evidence for there faith.
Why is a different and very personal reason. Often from life experience, due to what people have gone though, seen or felt.
Lots of people give evidence for their belive as dolph would says it's not scientific evidence but it is evidence for there faith.
Last edited:
All I'll say is that I'm glad it wasn't you that was pushing Ockham's razor above, as if you were, you would have your answer. You've also beautifully illustrated how inferior the hypothesis of God's existence is, in the religious sense. Originally, believers would have said that disease was punishment from God, science proves it to be because of micro-organisms and such (which weren't in the Bible, because the people that wrote the Bible had no idea that they existed), but then the believers say, "Ah, God was just even smarter than we could have imagined." It's an unfalsifiable argument, and that is not the sign of a strong argument, but of a fatally weak argument. It can never be beaten, because it never stays the same.A lot of people disagree with that, just look at the last few pages of this thread (and others like it).
Science is a predictive tool. It is used to look at evidence, and extrapolate from that evidence the likelihood of what will happen in the future with the same stimuli. Pill x fed to person y will cure disease z.
However, science proves (and can never prove) nothing about what ACTUALLY happens. For all we know, God could facilitate the person's cure once he is fed the pill. We can break this down into minutiae - science would say that the person heals due to a rise in white blood cell count, religion would say that God caused the rise in white blood cell count. There is no way of saying who is right, and this is why science can never disprove or prove God - it is not trying to and will never be trying to. It is "only" (and I use that term lightly - science is an exceptional tool) predicting what will happen and offering a possible explanation.
And did I not say that I don't believe them to be, in any meaningful sense, Christians? You can be a cultural Christian, and I suppose the majority of people living in the United Kingdom are, but that doesn't mean that you are a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. EDIT: And what I mean by that, is that I don't see any reason to call yourself a 'Christian' if that would be your only reason to do so.
Last edited:
The Unitarian Christians do not believe in the Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus.
They also do not believe he performed 'miracles' or that he was conceived of a Virgin.
It would be rather arrogant to dismiss their belief simply because of some preconceived medieval interpretation of what Christianity is or what Christians of differing denominations are required to believe.
There is no reason why religions of any creed can not be progressive and modernist. There is no reason why, like science, that religious adherents cannot adapt their faith to new evidence or beliefs.
To simply ascribe a single outmoded stratum of requirements to be a 'true' Christian is doing anyone with faith a disservice.
Quite simply, you can be a Christian if you follow the teachings of Christ, you do not have to believe in any supernatural aspects whatsoever.
Right, so what purpose does religion serve? Revealed truth isn't true? Knowledge imparted from God isn't absolute? How can such an absurd idea even be taken seriously?
I will not accept that religion can change it's stance on matters of this importance. The most horrific example is that of the Vatican's changing of it's stance on limbo, and purgatory. For thousands of years, mothers were led to believe that if their child was to die before (s)he could be baptised, they were doomed to spend eternity in limbo. Then one day, the Pope decides that this isn't the case anymore, they were wrong on that one, but they're ready to be infallible all over again. No serious person could listen to this nonsense without feeling somewhat ill.
Another example would be whether Bishop Rowan Williams is going to hell? According to his own canon, it's more certain than certainty itself. What about all of the homosexuals that have been going to hell for centuries? Are they now going to be raptured into heaven, from hell? Are they going to stay in hell, whilst those that die now are going to heaven?
Religion cannot change it's mind on this, in doing so it proves (yes, proves) it's utter falsehood to any thinking person.
I will accept this, as long as you concede that believing in the teachings of Christ, without believing any of the metaphysical or supernatural claims that go with it, is unequivocally immoral.
Last edited: