Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:26 AM May 2018

Something to keep in mind when considering the infallibility of science.

Source: Patheos, by Timothy Rowe

*****

The fact is that God is not any one, single idea, but a family of different hypotheses connected by a common theme. This is not a unique property of the idea of God. For example, there are literally hundreds of different versions of the theory of cosmological inflation—the idea that the early universe underwent an extremely brief moment of exponentially accelerating expansion. Discovering that one of these models is false doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about the truth or falsehood of the many others.

The idea of God is similar. There are many different ways in which to model the divine, and having reasons to doubt one version does not negate the possibility that truth sits somewhere among the remaining ones.

Religions have historically had the loudest voices over what God is, so it’s not surprising that religious accounts have predominated human thought.

*****

Happily, just as with the failure of a particular scientific model for cosmological inflation, the failure of a religion to provide a plausible and coherent account of God does not indicate that doing so is impossible.

This is why the increasing tendency of people in the United States to avoid identifying as religious may be the start of something positive, for it opens the door to new and interesting collective explorations of the idea of God.

Read it at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionnow/2018/04/the-idea-of-god-beyond-religion/


Many versions of Big Bang - including Hawking's last and latest suggesting our universe is a holographic projection!









A Smooth Exit From Eternal Inflation?
120 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Something to keep in mind when considering the infallibility of science. (Original Post) yallerdawg May 2018 OP
Science doesn't claim to be infallible. Girard442 May 2018 #1
The point is, when some aspect of science fails or proves to be wrong... yallerdawg May 2018 #4
Science is a method of investigation, yallerdawg. MineralMan May 2018 #7
Could we say the process of science (scientific method of inquiry) is infallable 3Hotdogs May 2018 #29
I'm not fond of the word, infallible, actually. MineralMan May 2018 #31
It would be better to say that the process of science is self-correcting VMA131Marine May 2018 #104
One does not have faith in science. It isn't a religion/ideology/dogma/belief system bitterross May 2018 #60
So you don't consider science to be infallible? yallerdawg May 2018 #61
Of course not. That would be against the whole point of science. bitterross May 2018 #62
Just scan all the OP titles in Religion group. yallerdawg May 2018 #64
This is the only one I found Major Nikon May 2018 #74
Who north of a room temperature IQ does? Major Nikon May 2018 #72
The best part about science is it doesn't rely on faith Major Nikon May 2018 #66
Keep telling yourself that. yallerdawg May 2018 #73
I will Major Nikon May 2018 #75
Science works trillions of times, reliably Bretton Garcia May 2018 #118
Allergy Alert! Straw pile ahead. Cartoonist May 2018 #2
Personal attack. yallerdawg May 2018 #5
The attack says more about the attacker than the one attacked. guillaumeb May 2018 #51
Same ol' same ol'. yallerdawg May 2018 #53
I'll remind you of that when you post a series of laughing smileys after a serious statement Major Nikon May 2018 #108
Is this an attack? Major Nikon May 2018 #107
Strong in invective are you. guillaumeb May 2018 #113
When has science claimed to be infallible? Dr Hobbitstein May 2018 #3
Does every scientific law and claim require an asterisk?* yallerdawg May 2018 #8
It is proof based on empirical evidence. Dr Hobbitstein May 2018 #24
No Major Nikon May 2018 #76
Who has claimed that science is infallible? MineralMan May 2018 #6
Why does a creator require divinity? LakeArenal May 2018 #9
It's not 'required.' yallerdawg May 2018 #10
Hmmm? Not according to what I have found LakeArenal May 2018 #11
More than 2 out of 3 people of faith on this planet... yallerdawg May 2018 #13
So you are saying in some religions the creator is not divine? LakeArenal May 2018 #19
So who are the outliers? Major Nikon May 2018 #77
So, that's like saying, "Sometimes the Bible is correct and sometimes it's not," MineralMan May 2018 #14
Or, there is nothing that you recognize as proof. guillaumeb May 2018 #45
The problem is that religious ideas are so infallible, you can't even declare them to be correct. DetlefK May 2018 #12
Is science proving that "whatever happened" there is no God behind it? yallerdawg May 2018 #15
Well, for one. God would be an unnecessary multiplication of entities. longship May 2018 #17
No, but none of the "most likely" explanations has any need for God. None. DetlefK May 2018 #18
Hawking/Hertog has proposed this: yallerdawg May 2018 #21
Irrelevant. DetlefK May 2018 #23
You believe in scientific methodology, don't you? yallerdawg May 2018 #27
Actually, Herodotus was incorrect. MineralMan May 2018 #33
Such is the case for all scientific laws Major Nikon May 2018 #82
:D Scientific theories don't come out of nowhere. DetlefK May 2018 #84
Here's a challenge: Give me one example. DetlefK May 2018 #16
"God works in mysterious ways." yallerdawg May 2018 #20
That rests on the premise that God "works". But you missed the point. DetlefK May 2018 #22
Here I offer holographic universes and revolutionary dismissal of original concepts... yallerdawg May 2018 #25
The problem is that you mix up two things. DetlefK May 2018 #85
Strawman Argument (nt) NeoGreen May 2018 #26
Thanks for contributing to the discussion! yallerdawg May 2018 #28
You are most welcome... NeoGreen May 2018 #30
So, by your own statement, you have "ignored" two people in this MineralMan May 2018 #34
The 11th commandment Lordquinton May 2018 #36
It's brilliant, really. MineralMan May 2018 #37
Might as well add a few more Major Nikon May 2018 #65
Do you have something here to discuss? yallerdawg May 2018 #69
So you claim to ignore someone by proving you didn't Major Nikon May 2018 #71
Consider a couple of things TlalocW May 2018 #32
Consider which would come first. Always comes first. yallerdawg May 2018 #39
It is an evolutionary tool TlalocW May 2018 #47
There has been plenty of life on this planet. yallerdawg May 2018 #48
Only religious people offer "certainty". 23 flavors of certainty. Bernardo de La Paz May 2018 #35
I'm confused! yallerdawg May 2018 #40
The point of religion is "faith". "Faith" is certainty in the absence of evidence. Bernardo de La Paz May 2018 #42
Obviously you put too much faith in literacy Major Nikon May 2018 #78
touch ! Bernardo de La Paz May 2018 #88
The title of the post is just wrong Lordquinton May 2018 #38
Hawking and Hartog are deeply imponderable by many. yallerdawg May 2018 #41
"The author I cited was easily understood." That's because he/she is wrong. Bernardo de La Paz May 2018 #43
I'm also referencing Hawking. yallerdawg May 2018 #44
I understood the author Lordquinton May 2018 #46
Of course. yallerdawg May 2018 #49
Well it looks like I'm on my way to Ignoresville... uriel1972 May 2018 #50
Again, I stated 'considering the infallibility.' yallerdawg May 2018 #54
You can't prove religion isn't infallible Major Nikon May 2018 #80
You said, "But if they were held to the same standard Mariana May 2018 #109
That's an interesting thread to bring up Lordquinton May 2018 #111
Science has gotten many things right, what has religion gotten right? marylandblue May 2018 #115
Not at all what I said Lordquinton May 2018 #105
Timothy Rowe. yallerdawg May 2018 #106
Thanks for the non-sequitor Lordquinton May 2018 #110
Something I keep in mind shanny May 2018 #52
Sounds like you have a lot of faith in science. yallerdawg May 2018 #55
I don't have "faith" in anything. shanny May 2018 #56
This OP. yallerdawg May 2018 #57
"...which they ANTICIPATE we will never have evidence and proof of." eom shanny May 2018 #58
You anticipate we will have proof of infinite universes and unimagined physics? yallerdawg May 2018 #59
I think will we have proof, someday. shanny May 2018 #67
Sometimes scientist makes testible hypotheses long before the technology exists to prove them marylandblue May 2018 #114
And, again, the point is when the hypothesis doesn't pan out... yallerdawg May 2018 #116
If Hawking made a proposal that cannot, even in principle, be tested marylandblue May 2018 #117
Sure, creationism is a "theory" just like any other Major Nikon May 2018 #70
Don't be silly. It is exactly the same. Mariana May 2018 #63
What is exactly the same as what? shanny May 2018 #68
Yellow dog seems to think that the "faith" in science Mariana May 2018 #81
I believe water is wet, ergo the belief in god is no different Major Nikon May 2018 #83
All belief is the same Lordquinton May 2018 #119
Ah. Yep: that's silly. shanny May 2018 #86
Not this shit again. Voltaire2 May 2018 #79
I see it as a sign of their desperation... NeoGreen May 2018 #87
Okay.... uriel1972 May 2018 #89
The point is... yallerdawg May 2018 #90
Where to start? uriel1972 May 2018 #91
Doubt. yallerdawg May 2018 #92
Are you actually saying... uriel1972 May 2018 #98
Trust me. yallerdawg May 2018 #99
Maybe not... uriel1972 May 2018 #100
Don't feel lonely. Mariana May 2018 #102
You're talking to someone who thinks people worship science as a deity. Mariana May 2018 #93
Thank you! yallerdawg May 2018 #95
The willingness to be consistently wrong is the cornerstone of faith Major Nikon May 2018 #97
The best part about having faith is no proof is required for ridiculous claims Major Nikon May 2018 #96
Your point is 180 degrees opposite of a world most call reality Major Nikon May 2018 #94
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2018 #101
I believe you are the only commenter to watch it. yallerdawg May 2018 #103
Looks like yer back to zero Major Nikon May 2018 #112
... Lordquinton May 2018 #120

Girard442

(6,059 posts)
1. Science doesn't claim to be infallible.
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:29 AM
May 2018

Pragmatically, it has turned out to be the best tool we have for understanding reality, but that's subject to constant testing, unlike other schools of thought.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
4. The point is, when some aspect of science fails or proves to be wrong...
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:44 AM
May 2018

do we lose all faith in science?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
7. Science is a method of investigation, yallerdawg.
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:47 AM
May 2018

It never claims to be infallible. Only religions do that.

I'm afraid you have created a straw man and are now arguing with it. Science is not infallible, nor does it claim to be.

3Hotdogs

(12,210 posts)
29. Could we say the process of science (scientific method of inquiry) is infallable
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:45 PM
May 2018

until we find something better --

but the understanding of a subject may change.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
31. I'm not fond of the word, infallible, actually.
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:50 PM
May 2018

The process of science has changed over time, when new technology provides new methods. We can now observe things we could only theorize about just 50 years ago. That progress will continue, giving us new methods of observation.

The scientific method is flexible in its details, but not in its insistence on evidence to support theories.

VMA131Marine

(4,124 posts)
104. It would be better to say that the process of science is self-correcting
Thu May 10, 2018, 12:13 PM
May 2018

Science has gone down blind alleys before, but usually turns itself around when the evidence is allowed to speak for itself.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
60. One does not have faith in science. It isn't a religion/ideology/dogma/belief system
Tue May 8, 2018, 10:19 PM
May 2018

Science makes no claims that require faith. It does quite the opposite. It's a process or methodology that requires proof or disproof of a theory.

To say one would lose faith in science makes no logical sense. There is no core dogma to believe in or deny.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
62. Of course not. That would be against the whole point of science.
Tue May 8, 2018, 10:42 PM
May 2018

I fail to see any point made by stating something everyone already thought was the case. You can't make a point by telling me water is wet. Everyone already knows that and anyone who disagrees is ignorant, uneducated or being willfully obtuse. Similarly, you can't make a point by telling me science is fallible. Of course it is. No true scientist would claim otherwise.

I fail to understand why you ever stated your op in the first place.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
64. Just scan all the OP titles in Religion group.
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:00 PM
May 2018

You'll see this is just an ongoing "discussion" on a recurring theme.

Kind of like the rest of DU.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
74. This is the only one I found
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:22 PM
May 2018

And you were the one making that allegation. Your logic seems rather circular unless you can come up with a better example.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
73. Keep telling yourself that.
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:19 PM
May 2018

Science is built on not finding that one time it doesn't work.

Euclid had it. Newton had it. Einstein had it. Hawking had it.

And then 'poof' it's gone.

If science ultimately kills us all, we can die consoling ourselves that at least it was based on provable facts.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
75. I will
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:26 PM
May 2018

Seems better than the alternative of deluding myself into pretending it’s something it’s not so I can sleep easier content in the faith of my imaginary friend. YMMV.

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
118. Science works trillions of times, reliably
Fri May 11, 2018, 01:30 AM
May 2018

Our technological era - or say, just your living room, probably - is full of amazing technology. developed thanks to science. TV, radio, phone, heating, etc... You probably drive a car every day, and eat food grown .. thanks to science.

You can throw a light switch, and it works 999 imes out of 1,000, or more. In contast? You can pray for a giant supernatural miracle a hundred thousand times. And it will never work even once; not a single time.

So science isn't based on faith; it is built on massively proven evidence, and probability. And it is therefore incredibly perverse, twisted, of pathetic "Patheos," to focus on the most speculative cosmological theories - which are called "theories" by the way - to " prove" that science is allegedly unreliable, or faith-based.

Cartoonist

(7,298 posts)
2. Allergy Alert! Straw pile ahead.
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:37 AM
May 2018

As soon as I saw "infallibility of science " I knew yd was posting some tremendous bullshit again.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
108. I'll remind you of that when you post a series of laughing smileys after a serious statement
Thu May 10, 2018, 01:26 PM
May 2018

...immediately following ridicule only you seem to think is funny.

Bookmarking for future reference.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
107. Is this an attack?
Thu May 10, 2018, 01:22 PM
May 2018
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017491630

I get you have to keep pretending attacks on silly ideas are no different than personal attacks, but repeating this claim ad nauseum doesn't make it any less intellectually bankrupt.
 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
3. When has science claimed to be infallible?
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:38 AM
May 2018

Scientific views change when new evidence is presented. That's how it works.

Pretty sure religion is the only thing claiming infallibility.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
8. Does every scientific law and claim require an asterisk?*
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:53 AM
May 2018

* until disproven.

You are pointing out science is not proof, it is just likelihood built on known circumstances we are aware of.

The point when "considering the infallibility of science."

I'm probably guilty of some kind of heresy?

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
24. It is proof based on empirical evidence.
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:31 PM
May 2018

As with anything based on evidence, there is always the possibility that new evidence may present itself.

Ken Hamm and Bill Nye were both asked what would change their beliefs. Ken Hamm said “nothing”. Bill Nye said “evidence”.

Nothing is infallible.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
76. No
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:35 PM
May 2018

A scientific law has already been proven to apply to the set of circumstances in which it describes. You appear to be conflating scientific law with scientific theory. All you are really doing is providing strong evidence you don’t have a firm grip on definition of the concepts involved.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
6. Who has claimed that science is infallible?
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:45 AM
May 2018

No scientist, I am sure. Nor anyone who understands what science is and how it operates.

In reality, science is based on fallibility. Any scientific theory can be falsified if the evidence goes against it.

The Pope is said to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, though. The Bible is believed to be infallible by many. It is religion that claims infallibility, not science.

LakeArenal

(28,729 posts)
9. Why does a creator require divinity?
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:04 PM
May 2018

Not only is there no proof of a creator. There is no proof anywhere of divinity. By now we should have inklings into either. Nope.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
10. It's not 'required.'
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:22 PM
May 2018

It's a state of being.

We attribute human feelings and understandings to things which quite often do not possess them at all. Then again, sometimes we are right.

LakeArenal

(28,729 posts)
11. Hmmm? Not according to what I have found
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:27 PM
May 2018

Thought there was the father(god) the son(the physical) and the Holy Spirit (your state of being).

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
13. More than 2 out of 3 people of faith on this planet...
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:35 PM
May 2018

and a great number of Christians have no such belief.

LakeArenal

(28,729 posts)
19. So you are saying in some religions the creator is not divine?
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:00 PM
May 2018

The "god" part isn't believed by many? The Jesus as the physical representations of god ( I get that many religions don't have Jesus, but in America lots do.) and the spirit or soul doesn't exist? So I am not at all sure what you are saying.

Ricky Gervais said on Colbert something to the effect; There are thousands of religions Colbert doesn't believe in. Well, for Ricky, it's all those religions and one more.. Colbert's.

I think that seems to fit my thoughts exactly

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
77. So who are the outliers?
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:42 PM
May 2018

I thought your claim was believers and non-believers both have faith. What is this 3rd option?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
14. So, that's like saying, "Sometimes the Bible is correct and sometimes it's not,"
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:35 PM
May 2018

while failing to describe how to tell which is which, then. Sometimes God is one thing, and sometimes it's another thing, and it's not for us to know which is which.

Science doesn't work like that. Instead, it proposes theories, offers evidence or mathematical calculations that support them, and challenges others to find evidence to the contrary. With religion, no evidence exists of deities, only statements about them. People are supposed to believe that stuff with no evidence at all.

I'll take the scientific method, then. That religion thing sounds suspiciously like it's completely false. Who would believe something that isn't supported by anything at all, other than an undefined concept like "faith," which means nothing more than believing things without evidence.

Not logical at all, I think.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
12. The problem is that religious ideas are so infallible, you can't even declare them to be correct.
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:33 PM
May 2018

If you have a question, science can give you a dozen of possible answers and it can tell you which one of those is most likely the correct answer.

If you have a question, religion can give you hundreds of possible answers, but religion cannot tell you which of these possible answers are important, which are useful, which solve your problem.



Let's say, somebody has an epiphany and figures out the final explanation what God really is like. The problem: THERE IS NO POSSIBLE ARGUMENT HE CAN MAKE TO PROVE THAT HIS EXPLANATION IS CORRECT.

How is he supposed to prove that he indeed has found the correct answer?????????



I once came up with an outline for a proof that God does not exist. You know what the most grave and most devastating criticism was?
That in order for people to accept my proof, I would first have to convince them to accept my definition of "reality".

How are we supposed to argue about something beyond our reality if we cannot even agree on our reality?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
15. Is science proving that "whatever happened" there is no God behind it?
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:39 PM
May 2018

I don't think so - not by a long shot.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
18. No, but none of the "most likely" explanations has any need for God. None.
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:56 PM
May 2018

It was in the era of about 1750 to 1800 when scientists realized that explanations involving God aren't really necessary. They ditched God and focused on materialistic explanations simply because they no longer needed God for their explanations.

I mean... Which kind of explanation do you prefer?
- an explanation that is based on God but doesn't give a usable answer to your question
- an explanation that ignores God but does give a usable answer to your question



Isn't it embarassing when God has to compete with mundane, materialistic explanations and the mundane, materialistic explanation turns out to be superior EVERY SINGLE TIME?

If someone finishes dead-last in every single competition, what are the odds that he's actually the best player?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
21. Hawking/Hertog has proposed this:
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:23 PM
May 2018
"When we trace the evolution of our universe backwards in time, at some point we arrive at the threshold of eternal inflation, where our familiar notion of time ceases to have any meaning," said Hertog.

Hawking's earlier 'no boundary theory' predicted that if you go back in time to the beginning of the universe, the universe shrinks and closes off like a sphere, but this new theory represents a step away from the earlier work. "Now we're saying that there is a boundary in our past," said Hertog.

A 'boundary in our past' untestable and unproven, unknowable. Outside of all we know or can know.

A great many religions describe this, too.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
23. Irrelevant.
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:30 PM
May 2018

The greek philosopher Herodotus talked about the concept of atoms (smallest individual parts that make up matter), not knowing whether they exist or not. It was pure coincidence that something like atoms and elementary particles were later found. Herodotus made up his idea out of thin air: There was no chain of reasoning that lead him to the conclusion that there must be atoms.



Same for religions: They can postulate all the crazy ideas they want. If they cannot point to a line of reasoning that lead them to this idea, the idea is no better than a random guess.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
27. You believe in scientific methodology, don't you?
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:40 PM
May 2018

Come up with an explanation, and test it?

It often takes some time to find the means to prove what was conceived of. Herodutus was proven right.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
33. Actually, Herodotus was incorrect.
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:58 PM
May 2018

The atom is not the smallest bit of matter at all. He had no way to know that, but science discovered that later, and demonstrated that atoms are not the smallest division of matter.

Herodotus had the right idea, but could not test it and was in error. That error has now been corrected, but there is still more to learn about matter and energy. We're still discovering the facts. That's how science works.

Similarly, Newton developed what he thought were physical laws. We now know that he was incorrect, as well. His "Laws" work fine in limited circumstances, but fail in other circumstances. He was correct, as far as he could go, but there was more to learn. We understand physics better now, due to science.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
82. Such is the case for all scientific laws
Wed May 9, 2018, 01:42 AM
May 2018

They are only true within the realm of what can be proven and as such they always apply to a set of limited circumstances. When we venture outside that realm of circumstances, new rules are sometimes needed.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
84. :D Scientific theories don't come out of nowhere.
Wed May 9, 2018, 04:42 AM
May 2018

Let's say I predict the existence of asolfhdkasfjhaldnjf. I have no idea whether asolfhdkasfjhaldnjf exists, but it could. Now, if somebody were to one day prove one day the existence of asolfhdkasfjhaldnjf, that would mean that I was a visionary who predicted it.

That's like saying that Paul the Octopus had prophetic powers. Paul was making a random guess. There was no argument that supported one decision over the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus



Now, if we talk about artistic inspiration, that's a whole other thing. It is entirely possible that "Frankenstein" inspired work in robotics. It is entirely possible that Jules Verne inspired our desire for going to space. It is entirely possible that William Gibson gave scientists the idea to invent the Internet.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
16. Here's a challenge: Give me one example.
Tue May 8, 2018, 12:44 PM
May 2018

Give me one fact about God that is absolutely undeniably and inarguably correct.

Alternatively: Give me one fact about God about which we can say that it is correct to a certain, absolutely undeniable and inarguable known probability.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
20. "God works in mysterious ways."
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:01 PM
May 2018

Given that proof would be the end of faith (for most people ) and would profoundly change the nature of our experience and relationship with God, maybe just maybe a lack of evidence is part of the deal.

But a great many people of faith would tell you they experience proof everyday!

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
22. That rests on the premise that God "works". But you missed the point.
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:23 PM
May 2018

One possible theory about God is the demiourgos-concept: That God created laws of nature and that he controls the universe indirectly via these constant laws he has set.
Also, there's no reason why I couldn't start an argument with you that God does not work in mysterious ways but clearly has a plan: He wants to turn us into hamsters. I could come up with any number of arguments supporting my idea.

You argue that an explanation what God is like or what he likely is like will eventually be found. But when that explanation has been found, whoever found it has to convince himself and others that it is correct. How could that be possible if religious ideas cannot be judged as right or wrong???



Do you know how religious debates were settled in medieval Europe?

Each side would collect a list of quotes from the Bible that support their opinion and ignore the quotes that supports the case of the other side.
Then they would exchange letters or maybe come together and argue.
And then they would come to a standstill because no side was capable of proving that their opinion is correct and the other one is not.
And then one side would throw the other side into a dungeon or burn them on the stake.

And that's how you win a religious argument.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
25. Here I offer holographic universes and revolutionary dismissal of original concepts...
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:33 PM
May 2018

as examples of what science offers us, and you want to go back to particular medieval arguments?

The point is we don't reject science when it fails - fails to explain things, fails in its former assertions.

With so much we still don't know, why do we need to crossout religious belief? Genesis offers a fairly accurate description of what happened in the very beginning. Kind of a testable hypothesis, you might say. Hawking/Hertog are not providing evidence to the contrary.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
85. The problem is that you mix up two things.
Wed May 9, 2018, 04:59 AM
May 2018

Religion and science are not equal.

We consider the scientific methodology infallible. (For two reasons: 1. it's track-record of success, 2. it's the real-world counterpart of the abstract mathematics of statistics)
We DO NOT consider scientific ideas themselves to be infallible.

However, in religion the ideas themselves ARE infallible. It is not possible to prove a religious idea wrong or to even make a qualitative judgement whether it is most likely wrong or most likely correct.



For example, let's consider two competing theories:
- natural event 1 and these laws of nature caused it
- natural event 2 and those laws of nature caused it

We compare the predictions of explanations 1 and 2 with the empiric evidence. The explanation that came closest to the evidence is likely the correct one. And depending on how good the match is, we can calculate the probability to which one is correct and the other one wrong.

Now let's look at two other competing theories:
- some natural event involving laws of nature did it
- God did it

What are the odds that explanation 1 is correct and what are the odds that explanation 2 is correct? Well, lets do it like we did above:
Explanation 1 makes a prediction and we compare it to the evidence. However, "God did it" does not even make a prediction you could test! There is no way to prove "God did it" as EITHER correct or wrong.





Why would I care about an explanation that cannot be proven correct?

NeoGreen

(4,030 posts)
30. You are most welcome...
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:46 PM
May 2018

...I gave the original post all the consideration it was due.

And please have an obligatory nice day!!

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
34. So, by your own statement, you have "ignored" two people in this
Tue May 8, 2018, 02:00 PM
May 2018

thread who have disagreed with you. At that rate, soon, you will see no disagreement at all. Will you then think you are correct?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
37. It's brilliant, really.
Tue May 8, 2018, 02:41 PM
May 2018

If a few people put everyone but themselves on Ignore status, they could have a forum with no visible disagreement to visit. That way, their goals would be completely met.

I'm surprised they hadn't thought of that already. Now, the forum would be boring, of course, and only a few names would appear on their screens, but they'd be able to say just about anything and would never see a word to the contrary.

What a terrific idea! Perhaps we'll see it in action. Of course, we'll see it all, even if they don't.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
65. Might as well add a few more
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:04 PM
May 2018

The premise of the OP is strawman and it’s hard to imagine a better example. Rather than ask someone why they think so and discuss it like an adult, you act as if you’re going to take your ball home. All you’ve really done if proved why that’s no great loss.

If that’s really the best you can do, feel free to add me to the list.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
69. Do you have something here to discuss?
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:10 PM
May 2018

Maybe I should shorten my OPs to a comprehensible single paragraph or sentence maybe?

Is it all TMI?

And by 'ignore' I mean I read each and every post and OP that interests me - I have never used the DU 'ignore' feature.

I just do it old school - deeply and personally ignore.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
71. So you claim to ignore someone by proving you didn't
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:15 PM
May 2018

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.

TlalocW

(15,359 posts)
32. Consider a couple of things
Tue May 8, 2018, 01:54 PM
May 2018

Whenever science and religion have gone head-to-head, it is religion every single time that has to back down. Every single time.

Imagine an event that wipes out all memories from everyone on the planet and takes away all books and other reference material. Both religion and science would return, however, science would return as the same thing while religion would undoubtedly be all new stories made up to explain lightning, the shape of the earth, the relation of celestial bodies, atoms, etc. We would discover Pi again. We may not call it Pi, but it would be used in our new calculations which would be the same as our old calculations just with different symbols.

TlalocW

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
39. Consider which would come first. Always comes first.
Tue May 8, 2018, 03:44 PM
May 2018

There is something inherent in humankind that makes us ponder more than just food, clothing and shelter.

It's not a survival adaptation. It's not an evolutionary tool.

It's in our souls and what makes us what we are.

TlalocW

(15,359 posts)
47. It is an evolutionary tool
Tue May 8, 2018, 08:42 PM
May 2018

Our brains look for connections between event a and b, even if there may not be one. Primitive man is out gathering nuts, and there's a rustle in the tall grass, who's most likely to survive and pass on their genes - the guy who doesn't wait around to see what it is, the guy who investigates it, or the guy who ignores it? The first one. Whether there was danger or not, the connections between a) tall grass rustling and b) being eaten by something was connected in his head and is advantageous right now in an evolution sense.

Now consider how religion has changed in our history from many gods needing to be appeased to monotheism. The gods representing natural elements, rain, wind, volcanoes, etc. all needed to be appeased. And the times that throwing a pig and a couple of fruit platters into a volcano seemed to calm it down will be remembered more than the times it failed (and believers will just make excuses for the failure anyway... We gave our volcano god kiwis for the first time! He must not like kiwis!). The evolutionary benefit of this behavior was that primitive people banded together to help appease their gods and help the tribe recover when they weren't.

As more and more of these supernatural gods dropped off (hey, we can circumvent Thor throwing down lightning bolts with metal rods stuck in the ground... what a crappy god!), we still had the trait that made us feel there was something else out there who created everything for us, and hey, these guys over here say there's just one god, and you know what he wants more than anything? For us to be nice to each other (oh, and also to give us, his priests nice things), and if you aren't nice to each other, he'll punish you... and he's alwaaaaays watching. Evolutionary advantage - we've been suckered by the tall grass again - maybe there is or isn't a god, but it's once again better to be on the safe side and not kill the jerk living three trees down because this time, instead of getting eaten, some big guy in the sky is going to fuck me up.

All of this is humankind (and/or its ancestors) trying to figure out how we fit in in the universe. As we've advanced, there were tugs at our primitiveness - I'm sure there was a lot of concern from "fundamentalists" back in the day when we started abandoning volcano, rain, and sun gods, but we evolved, and that's not stopped.

So yes, religion would come first. We didn't start with very scientific minds and technology where we could investigate things. We started primitively and used primitive thinking to explain our world. But as we progress, the magical explanation of things occupies a smaller place in the universe. Gods throwing lightning rods is shown to be a natural phenomenon. Alchemy gives us chemistry. Etc.

TlalocW

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
48. There has been plenty of life on this planet.
Tue May 8, 2018, 08:46 PM
May 2018

If this is a result of survival of the fittest, natural selection, why us and not some other branch, species, extinct species that was here for millions of years.

Why just us?

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,789 posts)
35. Only religious people offer "certainty". 23 flavors of certainty.
Tue May 8, 2018, 02:04 PM
May 2018

You posted a straw man and knocked it down. Congratulations you will have soon learned not to post a fallacy like that. It cuts no ice in debating or serious thought.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
40. I'm confused!
Tue May 8, 2018, 03:54 PM
May 2018

I don't know where you get "religious people offer certainty."

I guess we all have our straw to bear!

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,789 posts)
42. The point of religion is "faith". "Faith" is certainty in the absence of evidence.
Tue May 8, 2018, 05:51 PM
May 2018

faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"


Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
38. The title of the post is just wrong
Tue May 8, 2018, 02:42 PM
May 2018

And not the title of the article. The article went off track so quickly I couldn't keep reading. The author has a base understanding of science and had so many errors adding up any point derived from it is all but meaningless.

Keep trying!

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
41. Hawking and Hartog are deeply imponderable by many.
Tue May 8, 2018, 04:01 PM
May 2018

"A holographic universe?"

"Too many multiverses would make it impossible to prove?"

"This all came out of an indescribable nothing?"

The author I cited was easily understood.

Bernardo de La Paz

(48,789 posts)
43. "The author I cited was easily understood." That's because he/she is wrong.
Tue May 8, 2018, 05:57 PM
May 2018

It's easy to write a computer program if it doesn't have to work correctly.

It's easy to speak a foreign language if the speaker doesn't care whether anybody understands them or not.

It's easy to write about complex scientific theories if the author simplifies them to the point of breaking them. Particularly if the writer has a backassward understanding of science like the thread title betrays.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
44. I'm also referencing Hawking.
Tue May 8, 2018, 06:44 PM
May 2018

Nobody in this OP has responded to what Hawking did or said or theorized.

Should I even be paying any attention to comments from holographic projections?

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
46. I understood the author
Tue May 8, 2018, 07:49 PM
May 2018

Who was not Hawking or Hartog, or Einstien, or Newton, or any other scientist. The actual author has a loose grasp of the subject matter, so any discussion based on the article is going to be flawed.

Just repeating "holographic universe" is meaningless, and it would take much deeper discussion, and it's at all related to this group anyways.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
49. Of course.
Tue May 8, 2018, 08:51 PM
May 2018

Author and source flawed and ignorant.

Further discussion WAY above this group's intellectual capacity.

Gotcha.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
50. Well it looks like I'm on my way to Ignoresville...
Tue May 8, 2018, 09:06 PM
May 2018

Ignorant in your arrogance and arrogant in your ignorance.
Science is not infallible

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
54. Again, I stated 'considering the infallibility.'
Tue May 8, 2018, 09:20 PM
May 2018

You have added nothing to the conversation.

The point is, science and religion are both not infallible.

But if they were held to the same standard, every time science fails in a hypothesis, we should reject ALL science.

Like the dismissal of religion, it has to be all or nothing, right?

And, of course, the argument is they can't be equal. Things we believe cannot be equal.

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
109. You said, "But if they were held to the same standard
Thu May 10, 2018, 01:30 PM
May 2018

every time science fails in a hypothesis, we should reject ALL science."

You don't hold religion to that standard at all, do you? For example, many people worshiped the Greek gods, and believed they were real. They were people of faith who believed just as fervently as you do. You, however, insist their religion was false, that the Greek gods didn't exist at all, and that those people's belief was wrong.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218268526#post89

And yet, you didn't reject ALL religion when you concluded that religion led all those people astray.

Who expects religion to be infallible? You've erected a strawman.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
115. Science has gotten many things right, what has religion gotten right?
Thu May 10, 2018, 09:36 PM
May 2018

Religion makes many claims for itself, but also blocks off any possibility of real evidence by appealing to special states of knowledge available only to people who already believe. If we did this outside religion, we'd have a world cars only start if you believe they will, and the amount of money in your bank account would go up and down based on your personal feelings.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
105. Not at all what I said
Thu May 10, 2018, 12:37 PM
May 2018

The author doesn't understand the subject matter, their writing shows it as such. If you feel this group is not intelligent enough that's all on you.

The discussion is out of this group's purview, and would require actual discussion, which is also out of this group's purview. Just repeating"holographic universe" doesn't make the cut.

I'm looking forward to the words that will be put in my mouth.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
106. Timothy Rowe.
Thu May 10, 2018, 12:56 PM
May 2018

Philosopher and spiritualist. I could have sworn he was on your team.

"The spiritual meaning of life is centered on insight, understanding, and choice—we live so that we might deepen our understanding of spiritually important truths, and achieve self-growth by doing so."




https://twitter.com/_TimothyRowe
 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
52. Something I keep in mind
Tue May 8, 2018, 09:13 PM
May 2018

is that science doesn't have all the answers, science hasn't investigated everything yet, science doesn't have the tools to measure everything yet...etc etc etc.

I get a little Irritated with people that think that, because we don't understand something Now, it can't possibly be true because "science." The history of science is full of things that we didn't "get" until we asked the right questions, and figured out how to answer them.

 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
56. I don't have "faith" in anything.
Tue May 8, 2018, 09:27 PM
May 2018

"Faith" being, by definition, belief in something without evidence.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
57. This OP.
Tue May 8, 2018, 09:34 PM
May 2018

Scientists have proposed a theory considering things which they anticipate we will never have evidence and proof of.

Modifying an earlier theory because it was clearly unprovable.

All based on a beginning beyond time and understanding, inconceivable to us.

And everything you believe science proves comes after this. No faith?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
59. You anticipate we will have proof of infinite universes and unimagined physics?
Tue May 8, 2018, 09:46 PM
May 2018

You have more faith than Stephen Hawking did!

 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
67. I think will we have proof, someday.
Tue May 8, 2018, 11:08 PM
May 2018

I don't "believe" it, I don't "have faith" in it, I just think it. Science is young; we're just getting warmed up. imho. How many impossible things have been proven already?

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
114. Sometimes scientist makes testible hypotheses long before the technology exists to prove them
Thu May 10, 2018, 09:29 PM
May 2018

Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted the existence of gravity waves about 100 years before we could detect them. Einstein himself had no idea this particular part of his theory could be tested. But we found a way to do it, and if gravity waves had not been detected by the equipment designed to detect them, we would know there is something wrong with either the theory or our equipment. Then we would have to either build better equipment or come up with a testable modification of the theory.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
116. And, again, the point is when the hypothesis doesn't pan out...
Thu May 10, 2018, 09:52 PM
May 2018

we don't toss science out the window.

Non-believers want to use science as the basis for their belief that there is no God or anything else we can imagine because we can't have the proof or conceive of a way to test it at this time.

What you said about how science works.

Hawking proposes we do not live in the reality of our existence, that we and everything we know are projections reflected from a two-dimensional finite surface we call our universe (not The Universe). Because he can't imagine any way we could ever test the infinite multiverse concept.

You think about these things and tell me, "Naw, God - even the one we are trying to figure out and understand - is just too fanciful?"

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
117. If Hawking made a proposal that cannot, even in principle, be tested
Thu May 10, 2018, 10:21 PM
May 2018

Last edited Fri May 11, 2018, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)

then it isn't science, it's speculation. Doesn't matter that he was a brilliant scientist. At best, it's a speculation that could be turned into a scientific hypothesis some day.

We don't throw out all of science because of a failed hypothesis, because science has proved itself many times over. Every time you start your car, turn on a light switch or use a computer, you are proving the validity of many scientific theories. It's go a 400 year track record and the huge transformations in our technology and knowledge are the proof.

Religion has a much longer track record, but it never reaches a conclusion on any issue. Is Jesus the son of God? It's a 2,000 year old argument that has never been resolved nor is there any way to resolve it. Is God really perfectly good? Well people some people say he is, and some people say there is too much evil for that. That argument is even older, again with no end in sight. The list goes on and on.

We have been trying to figure out the supernatural for thousands of years. And we have found nothing. Show me evidence that convinces me without telling me I have to believe first. That procedure does not produce evidence, it produces confirmation bias.

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
81. Yellow dog seems to think that the "faith" in science
Wed May 9, 2018, 01:08 AM
May 2018

he imagines you have is the same as his faith in his god.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
119. All belief is the same
Fri May 11, 2018, 02:38 AM
May 2018

unless it's Santa Clause or unicorns. Actually there is more historical evidence for both those things than there is their god.

NeoGreen

(4,030 posts)
87. I see it as a sign of their desperation...
Wed May 9, 2018, 08:08 AM
May 2018

...they can't stand seeing their theological ideas being dismissed as simplistic, anachronistic, irrelevant and ultimately harmful.

It's almost pathetic, really.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
89. Okay....
Thu May 10, 2018, 02:44 AM
May 2018

First off: The review and discarding of models (Theories) is not a failing or weakness of science, it is a core principle, its greatest strength. The models are held up to the Universe and if a newer model better fits then the old model is discarded. The models of the Universe are NOT discarded if they disagree with the dreams of bronze age priests.

Second: are you saying you can test the valididty of claims about dieties? because most of your co-religionists would disagree esp. GB.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
90. The point is...
Thu May 10, 2018, 08:43 AM
May 2018

science doesn't actually 'prove' anything.

And science doesn't disprove the concept of God, and in fact leaves a broadening unknown and unknowable factor in play.

Science is evidence-based. Religion is faith-based, with people of faith living their lives each day with all the proof and evidence of God's presence they will ever need.

The one that is hog-tied is science.

Science can't admit the faith it draws in many of its conclusions - then it wouldn't be "science."

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
91. Where to start?
Thu May 10, 2018, 09:33 AM
May 2018

Never said science "proves" anything it's a system of doubt not a system of belief.

Science reduces the places where a god or gods can "hide". Each and every day the more we find, out the "smaller" gods get.

Yes science is "Hog-tied" by the need for evidence. Faith doesn't need evidence it can create whatever it wants as has been seen throughout human history, however since we don't have unicorn powered generators it seems that evidence trumps faith in that regard.

The last one is boggling, science doesn't need faith in any of it's conclusions... it is a tool designed to remove as much faith as possible and impart some certainty in existence.

Your inept attempts to equate science and religion would be laughable if they didn't insult the intelligence of the readers to the extent that they do.

Oh and individual scientists aren't science, that some hold beliefs that are not supported by science does not disprove the body of science as a whole. Newton was wrong, Einstein was wrong and even Hawking can be wrong.

The argument from authority is no valid argument. Keep that in mind while you shout about "Holographic Universes".

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
92. Doubt.
Thu May 10, 2018, 09:51 AM
May 2018

I understand how a number of people are "all in" on having not a shred of doubt.

I'm just pointing out that science is not the basis of that conclusion.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
98. Are you actually saying...
Thu May 10, 2018, 11:09 AM
May 2018

that because some people treat science as a religion it therefore IS a religion?

That's like saying if someone treats a fork as a god it therefore IS a god.

If someone treats science as a religion it is a religion to them and them alone. It might say something about the person, but it says absolutely NOTHING about science itself.

Oh and on a side note, when I say I "believe" something/someone, or that I have "faith" in something/someone it means "I think that it is most likely true, or that they are most likely honest/reliable"

I understand that others use "faith" and "believe" to mean they KNOW that it is true or honest. Know meaning "no shadow of a doubt".

One is open to the possibility of doubt the other is not. How do you use those words I wonder?

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
102. Don't feel lonely.
Thu May 10, 2018, 11:58 AM
May 2018

Many other participants in this group have come to the exact same conclusion that you have.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
95. Thank you!
Thu May 10, 2018, 10:44 AM
May 2018

For helping me to spread the consistency of the message.

And for paying attention to the message!

On occasion, you're all right!

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
94. Your point is 180 degrees opposite of a world most call reality
Thu May 10, 2018, 10:37 AM
May 2018

Science proves everything with evidence and is in no way "hog-tied" as conclusions are always subject to change based on new evidence. Science without proof isn't science. It's baseless conjecture which is exactly what religion is. If you need zero evidence to be convinced of something, all you've really proved is how gullible you are.

Anyone is free to invent whatever religion they want. All that's required is an unfalsifiable creation myth and more than one person who thinks it's a good idea. No amount of evidence will ever shake those conclusions as they aren't subject to change. That's what a "hog-tie" looks like.

Science and religion are polar opposites in virtually every way that substantially defines them. Trying to establish false equivalencies between the two demonstrates the incredible level of desperation needed to justify faith. I suppose without such things organized religion would go the way of the dodo.

Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
103. I believe you are the only commenter to watch it.
Thu May 10, 2018, 12:09 PM
May 2018

I thought it was a fairly "understandable" presentation.

THAT's the way Ancient Man should have started Genesis!

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Something to keep in mind...