Evolution and the Pope

Quote: FrGamble

You are after my own heart! What an awesome post!

<blush> Thanks .

What science does, and can easily do, is refute or debunk the myths of any religion. In one of his autobiographies, Asimov says of Genesis that he realized early on it was simply a Hebrew myth of creation. Just about all ancient civilizations have such myths, and many set them down on paper or stone. These myths join other myths in, again, all ancient civilizations. the list is long: David and Goliath, the Iliad, the Odyssey, Gilgamesh, Ragnarok, Heracles (or Hercules), the Resurrection, the whole of the Popol Vuh, the Exodus, etc.

Many of these myths are the central parts of a belief system, in particular for Christianity. Though not equally so for all Christians. It must be recognized that a few centuries after Galileo, the Roman Church has, overall and in the mean, accepted, and even contributed to(*), modern science in most respects. So the Pope's latest statements are not surprising. Yet such statements still need to be made.

Definitive proof, with tons of hard evidence, that 1) humans are part of the animal kingdom, 2) humans and primates share a common ancestor, 3) the Universe is billions of years old, 4) the Earth is billions of years old, 5) the Universe is so vast as to be incomprehensibly large, and other such things did deliver very hard, and I dare say killing, blows to various myths.

More later. I'm supposed to be at work.

(*) Look up a certain Fr. Lemaitre who was an important physicist during the Relativity and Quantum revolutions.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm worried that you don't think there are any truths that science can't prove.

There aren't. Name something that exists
that science can't prove. If you say god or
sin I'll say prove it, and of course you won't
because you can't.

The other thing science did against religion, was to set a standard for the use of tangible, physical evidence in order to prove something. In the past, more often than not, arguments were used.

When two theories propose mutually exclusive interpretations of the evidence, only one, usually, can be right. This happened between the Big Bang and Steady State theories of the universe. More recently, String Theory is in deep, deep, trouble. It makes really good arguments, but the evidence for it just isn't there. Conversely, some things are noticed with observations which no theory predicted or suspected. Like Dark Matter, for example.

This hurts religion because no religion has ever produced anything approaching tangible evidence for any claim.

To be sure, the effects of religion on a person, group, region and nation can be studied and are very real (though the social sciences have their own problems, too). But proving religion beneficial or harmful proves nothing as to the existence of any god.

Quote: Evenbob

There aren't. Name something that exists
that science can't prove. If you say god or
sin I'll say prove it, and of course you won't
because you can't.

Oh Evenbob there are a million things that are true that science can't prove.

First of all it should be obvious that science could not even prove your idea that there is nothing that science can't prove. Science could not prove that you love your wife or that she loves you, that your neighbor is not an axe murderer, or that I exist. Science can't prove that lying or stealing is wrong. We could go much deeper and wonder if science can prove anything? Could you say that science can collect tons of data that can lead to strong hypotheses, but you really need a philosophical concept such as the scientific theory to move this data and hypotheses towards proof?

However the real problem with your thought is what Nareed is trying to get across. If you believe sin is just a concept or theory or that God is, then you yourself have taken it out of the realm of science. You need philosophy or theology to prove concepts or ideas are not true.

Quote: Nareed

The other thing science did against religion, was to set a standard for the use of tangible, physical evidence in order to prove something. In the past, more often than not, arguments were used.

When two theories propose mutually exclusive interpretations of the evidence, only one, usually, can be right. This happened between the Big Bang and Steady State theories of the universe. More recently, String Theory is in deep, deep, trouble. It makes really good arguments, but the evidence for it just isn't there. Conversely, some things are noticed with observations which no theory predicted or suspected. Like Dark Matter, for example.

This hurts religion because no religion has ever produced anything approaching tangible evidence for any claim.

To be sure, the effects of religion on a person, group, region and nation can be studied and are very real (though the social sciences have their own problems, too). But proving religion beneficial or harmful proves nothing as to the existence of any god.

Aw, you almost had me. Yet here you are backsliding into the idea that religion or philosophy are somehow weakened by science. Science can debunk or destroy religion, but I don't see how it can hurt religion. What I mean is that science either has evidence that something is right or that something is wrong. If it is possible or if it is outside the purview of science than I don't see how this would hurt religion. I think science makes it impossible for example to believe that Jesus came to the Americas and preached to an albino tribe of Native Americans. To believe this you have in my opinion to make an unreasonable act of faith, which I do not think is godly. Science of course can also support and help religion as I think it does in the case of Christianity. That there is a beginning of the universe, that life begins at conception, that community is essential for healthy human development, that the universe follows orderly and strict rules of physics, that humanity while a member of the animal kingdom is radically different, etc.

I also don't see the line where you are separating "tangible evidence" from evidence you seem reluctant to accept because it is so prevalent and obvious. Maybe you can explain why this evidence does not count towards the existence of God?

Quote: FrGamble

Oh Evenbob there are a million things that are true that science can't prove. .

Oh FrG, you are so deluded. Love is an emotion,
not a thing. It comes and goes with the wind.
Lying and stealing are only wrong if we agree
they are, the universe and nature make no
such judgements. And you never really need
a philosophical concept for anything practical.
They don't pay the rent, pay the bills, or put
food on the table.

Concepts (religion) is for when we have time
on our hands. When shelter and food are a
given, our minds turn to fanciful things to
entertain us. None of it can be proven by
science because none of it really exists.

Quote: Evenbob

Oh FrG, you are so deluded. Love is an emotion,
not a thing. It comes and goes with the wind.
Lying and stealing are only wrong if we agree
they are, the universe and nature make no
such judgements. And you never really need
a philosophical concept for anything practical.
They don't pay the rent, pay the bills, or put
food on the table.

Concepts (religion) is for when we have time
on our hands. When shelter and food are a
given, our minds turn to fanciful things to
entertain us. None of it can be proven by
science because none of it really exists.

Can you scientifically prove love is an emotion and that an emotion is not a thing? Can you scientifically prove your sick theory of moral relativism? Democracy is a concept, so is fairness and justice, are these concepts not practical? Do they not really exist?

Quote: FrGamble

Aw, you almost had me. Yet here you are backsliding into the idea that religion or philosophy are somehow weakened by science.

I did not say science weakens philosophy.

Quote:

Science can debunk or destroy religion, but I don't see how it can hurt religion.

You don't think destruction is a level of hurt?

Science has made religion admit there are answers it does not and cannot have, ever. Natural philosophers, the precursors of scientists argued about how God created the world (not the universe), Scientists today, if I may borrow a quote without attribution, have no need for that hypothesis.

Science is silent in relation to any god. That is how science hurts religion. Surely if a deities fingerprints were all over its creation, science would have found them or seen them by now. Instead we keep finding new things, all of which work as well without a god to make them do so.

Quote:

That there is a beginning of the universe,

That hasn't been proven, and it may never be. Oh, there was a Big Bang, as Lemaitre said, about 13 billion years ago. But we don't know what happened at the moment of the Big Bang, nor what, if anything, preceded it. The primordial atom might have existed unchanged for untold eons, or outside of time, or it might have existed for the tiniest amount of time having originated elsewhere (collapsed prior universe, leaked from another universe, whatever). So it may mark the beginning of the universe, which seems likely but is not proven, or it may just be a milestone in it, or even something else.

Quote:

that life begins at conception,

Sperm cells are alive. Ova are alive. Clearly life began long before conception. Cancer cells are alive, too.

Quote:

I also don't see the line where you are separating "tangible evidence" from evidence you seem reluctant to accept because it is so prevalent and obvious. Maybe you can explain why this evidence does not count towards the existence of God?

Assuming you're repeating the argument that "god exists because the universe exists," I must tell you it has never made a gram's worth of sense to me. It's a bit like saying Vorlons exist because Wal-Mart is having a sale on tires. It can't be argued with, because there is nothing to argue about.

Quote: Nareed

Science has made religion admit there are answers it does not and cannot have, ever. Natural philosophers, the precursors of scientists argued about how God created the world (not the universe), Scientists today, if I may borrow a quote without attribution, have no need for that hypothesis.

Science is silent in relation to any god. That is how science hurts religion. Surely if a deities fingerprints were all over its creation, science would have found them or seen them by now. Instead we keep finding new things, all of which work as well without a god to make them do so.

Science is rendered silent by God or anything that is spiritual or metaphysical. This is not because science has no use for God or philosophy or morality, but rather because it is in awe of these higher sciences. These other means to discover knowledge take the information observable science lays at their feet and use it to extrapolate, theorize, and discover truths that answer the bigger questions. It is philosophy that dusts the information science provides about our ordered and amazing universe to reveal the fingerprints of God.


Thanks also for the clarification about what is alive. I meant only that science shows us that a unique human life begins at conception.

Quote: Nareed

Assuming you're repeating the argument that "god exists because the universe exists," I must tell you it has never made a gram's worth of sense to me. It's a bit like saying Vorlons exist because Wal-Mart is having a sale on tires. It can't be argued with, because there is nothing to argue about.

No, I was just wondering why all the evidence you mention that comes from the social sciences about the benefits of believing in God and how fro the most part Christianity in particular is such a force for good in peoples lives is not to be considered as what you call "tangible evidence".

Quote: FrGamble

This is not because science has no use for God or philosophy or morality,

Science, and for that matter philosophy and morality, has no use for God.

Quote:

Thanks also for the clarification about what is alive. I meant only that science shows us that a unique human life begins at conception.

A unique, potential human life begins at conception. A unique, actual human life takes a few months past that.

Quote:

No, I was just wondering why all the evidence you mention that comes from the social sciences about the benefits of believing in God and how fro the most part Christianity in particular is such a force for good in peoples lives is not to be considered as what you call "tangible evidence".

Wow. Cramming between the lines?

I said the effects of practicing or believing in a religion are real and can be studied. I did not say these effects were good, nor did I say anything about Christianity in particular. I said something along the lines of: whether beneficial or harmful, they prove nothing as to the existence of any god.