Why do religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science?

[Moontanman]

 

 

Again no, it means there's no assumption to be made.

 

 

Ok, you are the first person to explain it in that manner but it seems reasonable as long as i don't have to assume they do exist until I prove other wise...

[dimreepr]

That's your choice.

[zapatos]

To say that scientific evidence for the Higgs Boson is no better than goddidit suggests to me that you have not been actually reading about the research.

To imply that Strange said that scientific evidence for the Higgs Boson is no better than "goddidit" suggests to me that you have not been actually reading Strange's posts.

 

 

Keep in mind that all I have to do is to demonstrate that there is some scientific evidence to support the Higgs-Boson field theory (e.g., data that is consistent with the already organized and systematic evidence backing the Big Bang theory) as opposed to the "goddidit" claim which has zero! scientific evidence of any sort whatsoever to support it.

Ah! I think we are on to something.

The Big Bang is not a theory that addresses how the universe began. It is a theory that addresses how the universe evolved.

[Raider5678]

Yes, a scientific theory. Please don't steer in that direction...

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory).

If I'm right, you were talking about the big bang. How was it that someone tested it? Or observed it? I missed it.

 

Anyways, we have the ability to sin, (IMO) because we are sentient, and understand what's right and wrong.

Do you follow that so far? I know its complicated, but it becomes more complicated ahead.

 

We have souls, because god gave us them. Once again, IMO.

 

Still with me? Great. This next part will blow your mind.

 

I don't consider myself equal to animals. In my opinion, we're smarter then them. Now I'm not anti animal , I'm just saying perhaps, if we can build space craft, and they can't so much as write, that we might be a little bit higher on the food chain. Or what ever yard stick you would measure stuff like that on.

[zapatos]

If I'm right, you were talking about the big bang. How was it that someone tested it? Or observed it? I missed it.

I think we've uncovered a big gap in your knowledge.

[Phi for All]

If I'm right, you were talking about the big bang. How was it that someone tested it? Or observed it? I missed it.

 

Whoa, dude, you need to study that in a different thread. But it's clear that you really need to study it.

[iNow]

Perhaps a place to start (but not end) your discovery of this field, Raider:

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/02/09/the-big-bang-for-beginners/

Edited June 23, 2016 by iNow

[Moontanman]

That's your choice.

 

 

My choice? Do you suggest there is another choice?

[dimreepr]

There's always another choice, with or without evidence.

Edited June 23, 2016 by dimreepr

[disarray]

dimreepr and Zapatos: You say "When did 'Strange' suggest there was? You've read them all, right, 'disarray', understand Nietzsche, much?"

 

Um, I just quoted from what Strange said on page 2 of this thread at 12:08 a.m.

I have no idea what your allusion to Nietzsche is supposed to mean. But since you asked, I've read all of Nietzsche's works as well as books about the meaning of his work...so what is your point? And no, I am not referring to any Nietzschean Eternal Return, if that is what you might be suggesting?

 

Zapatos: Of course the Big Bang theory does not explain the origins of the universe. I acknowledged that before. What it does do is lay the blueprint for explaining how the universe may have originated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson created a huge celebration among scientists...this particle helps explain how all other matter has mass...a huge issue. Higgs-Boson research just takes us a little bit closer to an understanding of how the universe either originated or continually recycles. For example, the Higg's Boson helps explain how other particles, e.g., the elements may have then developed as well as helping to explain why the universe developed the way it did (e.g., size and inflation):

 

The Universe, which today extends over billions of light-years, was incredibly minuscule at its birth. To simulataneously explain this dichotomy of scale and the fact that matter is seemingly distributed in a homogeneous fashion throughout the Universe, physicists have had to resort to a theoretical trick: they added an inflationary phase to the Big Bang, an initial phenomenal expansion in which the Universe grew by a factor of 10^26 in a very short time. Physicists have a hard time, though, accounting for this rapid growth.

In its first moments, the Universe was unimaginably dense. Under these conditions, why wouldn’t gravity have slowed down its initial expansion? Here’s where the Higgs boson enters the game – it can explain the speed and magnitude of the expansion, says Mikhail Shaposhnikov and his team from EPFL’s Laboratory of Particla Physics and Cosmology. In this infant Universe, the Higgs, in a condensate phase, would have behaved in a very special way – and in so doing changed the laws of physics. The force of gravity would have been reduced. In this way, physicists can explain how the Universe expanded at such an incredible rate.

http://phys.org/news/2011-09-higgs-boson-size-universe.html

I am well aware that the term "God Particle" with reference to the Higgs-Boson is something of a misnomer. Nevertheless, the point is that we are making headway in the effort to explain how the universe might be self-sufficient, both in terms of how it originates (or appears to originate) as well as how it runs, without resorting to a God to provide explanations or fill in the gaps of what we don't know. I think that what we do know with a fair degree of confidence about what happened over 14 billions years ago is pretty amazing accomplishment on the part of scientists. I have not claimed that scientists have provided a complete theory that proves how the universe originated....merely that scientists are, by the thousands, putting together a pretty consistent, coherent, and cogent explanation without relying on an completely unscientific God explanation.

Edited June 23, 2016 by disarray

[Moontanman]

There's always another choice, with or without evidence.

 

 

And that choice would be?

[zapatos]

dimreepr and Zapatos: You say "When did 'Strange' suggest there was? You've read them all, right, 'disarray', understand Nietzsche, much?"

 

Um, I just quoted from what Strange said on page 2 of this thread at 12:08 a.m.

No, you didn't. You paraphrased him, and did it incorrectly.

 

...the Big Bang theory does not explain the origins of the universe.

 

What it does do is lay the blueprint for explaining how the universe may have originated

Huh?

 

 

And that choice would be?

 

Whatever you want it to be. No one is forcing you to hold one belief over another.

[disarray]

Zapatos: You state "No, you didn't. You paraphrased him, and did it incorrectly."

 

I don't agree. I first quoted him and then I addressed his claim with respect to Higgs. Strange's remark in full was that,

 

"There is no scientific theory that describes the creation of the universe. There is speculation from the likes of Hawking, but I am not convinced that is any better (in terms of scientific support) than "goddidit".

 

As I had mentioned Higgs, along with Hawking, it is logical that he was also talking about research done on the Higgs Boson.

So, I responded to his quote by noting that the Higgs Boson, though not 100% complete or successful, is an attempt to 'describe the creation of the universe', or rather to explain how it created itself.

 

If Strange meant that there was no scientific theory to support the religious beliefs about the creation/origins of the universe, then I have misunderstood him. But this is unlikely, since I mentioned Hawking and other scientists, and there was no reference on my part in this regard to religious writers or to religion whatsoever.

 

I presume that you are not suggesting that I deliberately misconstrued his remark. In any case, if I did misinterpret what he meant, I think that he would be the one to clarify it, as he is the one that might have been offended. As a third party, your assumption that I misconstrued what someone else supposedly meant only serves to further confuse things. If you disagree with something, why not just state your point directly.

 

All I have heard so far, in this regard, is the word "huh." I clearly listed several reasons that the discovery of the Higgs Boson contributes to an understanding of the possible manner in which the universe may have originated on its own, so again, you might try to address these points directly.

 

In any case, here are some specific points that you might actually address:

“That being said, the release of evidence for the existence of these mighty specs {Higgs-Boson], and the wealth of new discoveries that will surely be made as a result, could have a radical impact on views of how the universe was formed.”

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/evidence-of-the-existacne-of-the-higgs-boson-whats-the-significance

The Higgs-Boson field theory, unlike Creationist or ID accounts, fits in with Big Bang theory.

“Some are claiming that this discovery is a blow to Christianity. The Higgs boson is “another nail in the coffin of religion,” said one Cambridge University professor… inflation could be viewed as a cause of the Big Bang, and this is likely why Kaku suggested that a Higgs-like particle (or more precisely, a Higgs-like scalar field) was the “spark” for the Big Bang.”

http://www.icr.org/article/higgs-boson-big-bang/ (Note: This is a Christian web site that tries to tell Christians not to worry so about the Higgs Boson replacing God, but it does point out that the ramifications of the Higgs Boson to one degree or another, be it directly or indirectly, do just that.)

“New research by UCLA physicists, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, offers a possible solution to the mystery of the origin of matter in the universe.”

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-physicists-offer-a-solution-to-the-puzzle-of-the-origin-of-matter-in-the-universe

Thus, the Higgs-Boson is related to an explanation of the origins of the universe in that it helps provide a credible explanation for the origins of matter (e.g., particles with mass). Not only that, but it may help explain why inflation occurred in the first place according to a CERN bulletin as explained in the following web page: https://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2013/12/News%20Articles/1525938

 

Again, I never claimed that the Higgs-Boson theory provided a complete and final explanation for the origins of the universe… I just said that it was a step in that direction and provided key pieces in the puzzle.

 

It should be obvious by now that there is far more evidence for the Higgs-Boson theory (especially since it dovetails so well into Big Bang theory about the development of the universe) in terms of explaining the origins or "creation" of the universe (even if we see such a creation as ex nihilo) than any nonscientific "goddidit" explanation.

Edited June 24, 2016 by disarray

[Moontanman]

No, you didn't. You paraphrased him, and did it incorrectly.

 

Huh?

 

Whatever you want it to be. No one is forcing you to hold one belief over another.

 

 

I hold no belief at all, you seem to be suggesting that some sort of belief is necessary... I am an apistevist, evidence is necessary for me to consider the veracity of anything...

[zapatos]

 

 

I hold no belief at all, you seem to be suggesting that some sort of belief is necessary...

 

I stated exactly the opposite.

 

You seem to be looking for a confrontation...

[Moontanman]

 

I stated exactly the opposite.

 

You seem to be looking for a confrontation...

 

 

I got you mixed up with dimreeper, my apologies...

[Memammal]

I was really not expecting to have a serious discussion on a science forum re divine intervention with people that have such strong anthropocentric views. This is turning out to be akin to a god of gaps kind of debate. Obviously every one is free to believe in what ever superstition he/she wants to, but to uphold such superstition while questioning the validity of my reference to our knowledge re the origin of our species in terms of what could possibly set us apart from fellow mammals and other animals when it comes to spirituality seems rather absurd. May I suggest this article as a good starting point to get up to speed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

 

Anyways, we have the ability to sin, (IMO) because we are sentient, and understand what's right and wrong.
Do you follow that so far? I know its complicated, but it becomes more complicated ahead.

I am not sure that this is a scientifically accepted fact. Why do you think only humans are sentient? Here is an opinion on this:

Evolution doesn't predict that only humans would be "sentient", whatever that is. Sentience is poorly defined, but whatever it is, there's no reason to expect that precisely one species should have it. Just the opposite: evolution predicts that whatever features arise in one species could arise in another, especially if they're closely related. And even if they're not closely related, there's no reason to expect that the same mechanisms couldn't happen by another route. There are countless examples of convergent evolution out there. So it's not surprising that any property attributed to humans has at least an echo in some other species. "Sentience", in the sense of "having senses", is pretty common all over the animal kingdom. For that matter, even plants and bacteria have at least some notion of detecting the world and responding to it. The notion that humans are special because we talk about what we think is largely just self-centeredness on our part: yes, what we do is distinctive and remarkable, but treating it as if it were some kind of super-power that everybody else should want is no more sensible than bees looking down on us because we can't make honey. We're special primarily in our ability to look down on other species for not being as awesome as us.

(​https://www.quora.com/If-evolution-is-true-can-someone-argue-that-only-humans-are-sentient-and-if-so-then-how)

 

Your statement also touches on consciousness.

Several psychologists and ethologists have argued for the existence of animal consciousness by describing a range of behaviors that appear to show animals holding beliefs about things they cannot directly perceive— Donald Griffin's 2001 book Animal Minds reviews a substantial portion of the evidence. (He suggests a gradual evolution of consciousness.)

Consciousness is likely an evolved adaptation since it meets George Williams' criteria of species universality, complexity, and functionality, and it is a trait that apparently increases fitness. Opinions are divided as to where in biological evolution consciousness emerged and about whether or not consciousness has survival value. It has been argued that consciousness emerged (i) exclusively with the first humans, (ii) exclusively with the first mammals, (iii) independently in mammals and birds, or (iv) with the first reptiles.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness)

 

As for morality, please educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality#Human_Social_Intelligence. Referring to behaviour, the contemporary school of thought among behavioural scientists is that our behaviour is strictly guided by an interaction between genes and environmental factors. Our behaviour is thus largely automated.

 

We have souls, because god gave us them. Once again, IMO.
Still with me? Great.

I must just take your word for it then?

 

This next part will blow your mind.
I don't consider myself equal to animals. In my opinion, we're smarter then them. Now I'm not anti animal , I'm just saying perhaps, if we can build space craft, and they can't so much as write, that we might be a little bit higher on the food chain. Or what ever yard stick you would measure stuff like that on.

Mind blowing indeed. It is called evolution and sorry to tell you that even though we are indeed more advanced, scientifically speaking we are still animals. Humans are classified as animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is mammalia. It's order is primate (the same as apes). It's family is Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is Homininae. It's tribe is Hominini. It's genus is Homo and it's specie is scientifically named Homo Sapiens.

[disarray]

Memammal: You state that "It is called evolution and sorry to tell you that even though we are indeed more advanced, scientifically speaking we are still animals."

 

Yes, we are getting down to brass tacks in terms of getting into an old-fashioned controversy between religion and scientists, e.g., between Creationists and Evolutionists. Perhaps some scientists like to point out the fallacies in, for example, Creationism, Biblical literalism, belief in miracles, etc., but with all due respect for people's Faith, in a science forum, it seems not only irrelevant to have such debates, but also to distract from the thrust of the topic (not to mention that rarely is anything ever resolved).

 

Indeed, the thrust of this post was not to conduct a verbal conflict between those taking a religious pov and those taking a scientific one, but to determine just why "religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science."

 

Indeed, it seems to me that you are reluctant to engage in such a dialogue as to whether, for example, people are superior to animals. So rather than disputing the beliefs of those whose ideas are quite out of sync with modern science, perhaps one might ask why some religious people so adamantly refuse to accept the generally overwhelming evidence that underpins a scientific worldview. I am not sure how one goes about this exactly, as my own observation is that religious people have a worldview that is consistent enough to resist any logic that scientists can throw at it, e.g., the logic and evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

Indeed, one obvious answer to the question of this thread is that religious people find that the general world view of scientists, esp. evolutionism, to be a threat to their beliefs and efforts to evangelize these beliefs. In terms of religion, ones worldview is literally a matter of life and death (i.e., salvation or damnation), not to mention the religious values that many think keep society from devolving into anarchy and evil.

 

Scientists, on the other hand, do not have, comparatively speaking, such an emotional investment in the conflicts between religion and science, except, perhaps, when it comes to impeding what they think is scientific progress (e.g., the banning of evolution in the school system), and perhaps issues such as banning stem cell research on religious grounds.

 

I think that comparing the motives of those who cling to creationism, literalism, divine intervention, etc. with the motives of scientists is a good approach to the topic question of this discussion. But alas, this too is often a dead end effort, since many religious people have it in their heads for one reason or another, that scientists have their own nefarious agenda, e.g. to spread atheism and materialism and to eradicate religious values.

Edited June 24, 2016 by disarray

[Strange]

Mind blowing indeed. It is called evolution and sorry to tell you that even though we are indeed more advanced

 

 

There is no scientific sense in which we are "more advanced".

 

Well, OK we are more advanced in some ways but every other organism is more advanced in other ways.

 

Indeed, the thrust of this post was not to conduct a verbal conflict between those taking a religious pov and those taking a scientific one, but to determine just why "religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science."

 

Thank you. (I already know why [some] atheists create this conflict, because they are very vocal about it - as this thread shows.)

[Memammal]

@ disarray: I take note. It was not an intentional derailing per se, or with ulterior motives as you seem to imply. It started in post #5, which should be read in context to what I quoted and what I responded to, and escalated from there. I have since found it difficult to comprehend why my opinions re the origin of our species in relation to the alleged acquisition of extraordinary- and presumably human-only traits such as the ability to sin or immortal souls were openly criticised, while the only counter-explanation that was offered was that of divine intervention.

 

PS. And I wholeheartedly agree with your observations as articulated in the last three paragraphs of your post.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

@ disarray: I take note. It was not an intentional derailing per se, or with ulterior motives as you seem to imply. It started in post #5, which should be read in context to what I quoted and what I responded to, and escalated from there. I have since found it difficult to comprehend why my opinions re the origin of our species in relation to the alleged acquisition of extraordinary- and presumably human-only traits such as the ability to sin or immortal souls were openly criticised, while the only counter-explanation that was offered was that of divine intervention.

 

 

Because (I assume) divine intervention is the only explanation that makes sense (in a religious context) and arguments about evolution are therefore totally irrelevant.

 

Simply repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more relevant.

[Memammal]

@ Strange: Following from disarray's post, I do not wish to take this much further. That being said, your answer is again reminiscent of a god of gaps argument. Evolution provides an eloquent, complete and scientific explanation for our species' advancement, why the need to insert divine intervention? Is there not an alternative to the "soul", or another way to explain the possibility- or likelihood of immortality? And why should only humans be "blessed" with it?

 

This seems to feed right back into the topic again, doesn't it?

 

PS. Let us park this. I realise that you have been playing devil(god)'s advocate for the sake of reasoning.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

@ Strange: Following from disarray's post, I do not wish to take this much further.

 

 

Ditto.

 

But ...

 

 

 

Evolution provides an eloquent, complete and scientific explanation for our species' advancement, why the need to insert divine intervention?

 

Because the putative soul has nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

Is there not an alternative to the "soul", or another way to explain the possibility- or likelihood of immortality?

 

Sure. Start your own religion. (And get rich.)

 

 

 

And why should only humans be "blessed" with it?

 

Because that is what people believe. (Which is why science is irrelevant.)

 

 

 

PS. Let us park this.

 

Agreed.

[Ten oz]

Right and wrong are not concepts that exclusively exist within humans. All animals that function in groups have basic standards of behavior that are either positive or negative to the group; members are held to those standards. All discussion of sin, immorality, choice, and etc as being uniquely human are ones of perspective.

 

In my opinion concepts like right and wrong shouldn't be part of these types of discussions. Via evolution a species either continues or it perishes. No right or wrong just contuned and not continued. As for God there either is one or there is not. Moses brought down tablets or he did not. Valuing either outcome with subjective emotional terms like good vs evil lends no truth or confirmation.

[Memammal]

Sure. Start your own religion. (And get rich.)

Because that is what people believe. (Which is why science is irrelevant.)

Lol. With hindsight I realise that both those last two questions that I posed were rather daft. The intention was to raise it from a philosophical perspective. Dismal attempt.