In my previous blog I claimed that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. To reiterate, the reason I gave was their differing epistemologies. Science relies only on what we observe with our senses, while religion claims an additional inner sense that reveals another world beyond.
Now let me take a look at some specific examples where these contrasting notions on the sources of knowledge lead to incompatibilities in their comprehension of the nature of reality.
1. The Transcendent
All religions, even Buddhism, teach that a reality exists that goes beyond -- transcends -- the world that presents itself to our senses and scientific instruments. While science is willing to consider any evidence that comes along, so far we have no empirical anomaly that requires us to introduce supernatural causes into our models.
In this regard, it is often claimed that science has nothing to say about the supernatural. But this is wrong. If the supernatural exists and has effects on the sensory world, then those effects would be observable and subject to scientific study. A God that plays such an important role in the universe and in human lives as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God should have been detected by now. The fact that he hasn't forces us to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with those attributes does not exist.
Let me take a moment to show why I can make such a claim. Even the most pious believer has to admit that there is no scientific evidence for God. If there were, it would be in the textbooks along with the evidence for neutrinos and DNA. But then, the believer will say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
While this may be true in general, it is not true when the evidence that is absent is evidence that should be there. The absence of evidence for elephants in Central Park (droppings, crushed bushes) can be taken as a good sign that there are none.
In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability (see God: The Failed Hypothesis).
2. The Origin of the Universe
Fundamental to most religions is the notion of divine creation. At one time it seemed impossible that the universe could have come into existence naturally. Christians saw the success of the big bang model as a further confirmation of the biblical creation story. At least it seemed to prove that the universe had a beginning and it followed, by their reasoning, that the cause of that beginning could only be a personal Creator God.
Modern cosmology has considerably dampened this hope. It has shown that the big bang need not have been the beginning of space and time and that the universe could be eternal. At least, theological claims that an eternal universe is mathematically impossible can be proven false. It now seems possible or even likely that our universe is just one of an unlimited number of other universes.
Several plausible scenarios for the natural origin of our universe have been published by reputable scholars. While we cannot say exactly how our universe came about, these scenarios, which are completely worked out mathematically and consistent with all existing knowledge, at least prove that a divine creation is not required.
3. Fine-Tuning
Many theologians and others have claimed that the parameters of physics are so delicately balanced that any slight changes in their values and life would not have been possible. Therefore they conclude that a creator must have fine-tuned these parameters so that we, and our form of life, would evolve.
This claim can be refuted on several fronts. The most popular explanation among most physicists and cosmologists is that many universes exist and we just happen to live in the one suited for us.
However, even if only our universe exists, adequate explanations within existing knowledge can be found for the values of the most crucial parameters. Others can be shown to have ranges that make some form of life probable (see The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning).
4. The Argument from Design
For centuries theologians have argued that the observed order we see around us is evidence for divine design in the universe. However, the universe does not look at all as if it were designed by a perfect, all-powerful, benevolent God. It is too imperfect, too filled with evil and suffering. And, as time has gone by, science has provided plausible explanations for the observed order.
Proponents of intelligent design creationism argue that complex structures require an architect and builder, and that natural processes cannot generate increasing complexity. They are wrong. The generation of complex systems from simpler systems can be seen in many physical situations, such as the phase transitions in which water goes naturally from gas to liquid to solid in the absence of external energy. In the physical and biological worlds, simplicity begets complexity.
The reason for much of the mistrust of science is the fundamental incompatibility of science and religion and the religious know that. At least evangelicals are honest about it. They recognize science as the enemy. Liberal and moderate believers, on the other hand, are fooling themselves if they think that can be both religious and scientific without being schizophrenic.
The premise of your argument is a paradox. When God does anything supernatural and it effects our sensory world, the first thing skeptics do is explain it away to a natural phenomenon or fraud. If God did in fact cause an earthquake, would you not say that it is only natural seismic activity due to the shifting of the plates? If God really did send his spirit into a virgin to conceive a child, would you not just call her a harlot who had to make up a story to keep her husband from stoning her? No matter what God does, you can always just break it down to mechanics, the "how it happened" and explain God away. So if he does exist, you'd never know anyways because you can always explain Him away.
You are free to choose on which wisdom to base your beliefs. But as a former non believer, I have learned in order to understand the world you apply the scientific method and since religion is a different subject, it should be handled as such. Understanding requires that you apply religious methods... meditation, praying, reading, praying, fellowship, praying & charity, etc... Your mind & your soul will awaken. Surely the physiological positive effects of these methods are beneficial in themselves for all humans to at least try to understand their Spiritual self at least once in their lives. Not doing this puts you scientifically at a Type II error & a greater risk occurs with not attempting to seek a Spiritual self. What harm would come but being a more centered & self-aware being?
Even the Pope agrees and issued a statement yesterday via the catholic news service saying: "subjecting God and his truth to scientific scrutiny represents an incorrect and despotic use of human reason."
Any truth claims, material or spiritual, that is not subject to testable scrutiny is a incorrect and despotic abuse of human reason. And it appears as if what for all of history has been an insurmountable divide has found a resolution, But I doubt either Mr. Stenger or the Pope will like it? But like it or not:
The first wholly new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ for two thousand years is spreading on the web. And against the entire stream of history, it is predicated upon an act of faith, leading to a precise, predefined and direct demonstration of the omnipotent divine will. "Â correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." In short that means that a literal PROOF of God has become possible.
To test or not to test, that is the question? http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/
Science has no need to address that question, because the argument is meaningless if you don't already accept the existence of an all-good all-loving god that created everything. Evolution has no trouble explaining why bad things happen, why some people harm others, because there is no intent within evolution, it is just blind processes. There is no excuses to make for it, as there is with theodicy.
As for your questions about the big bang and biogenesis, there is speculation that both actually have happened multiple times. Not that it would change anything if we were positive it had only happened once, because no matter how many times these processes have happened, that in no way supports any supernatural claims, because that would be nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.
"Speculation" - interesting word choice, there's also speculation that Christ really did exist, did some cool things while he was about, and his body is no where on Earth. Can we call it a tie then?
Similarly the conditions on Earth are different now then they were when life formed.
Science is almost useless for every day comforting of a person when Entropy has stomped on their life. Religion might not have any exact or precise answers, but its inexactness is precisely why it can give a person guidance when they are stuck.
As an Engineer, science is an important tool in every day work. However, religion helps when my equipment breaks once again, I have a tight deadline, and I am frustrated. Religion helps me believe that I will eventually overcome these simple challenges to achieve my goal.
Exactly my thoughts - the supernatural can only exist if it doesn't. Otherwise, it would soon be incorporated among our physical idea of the world and thus cease to be supernatural.
"It now seems possible or even likely that our universe is just one of an unlimited number of other universes."
I disagree. I believe that every physical presence must always be of a limited number (I disagree until someone explains to me how the opposite would be possible).
As the authors says: f the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God exists we should see evidence that he answers prayers. We do not. And yet people continue to believe in the power of prayer and some scientific studies have shown that prayer does have an impact. It may not result in a big lottery win but there have been some studies that appear to show a weak yet real causal link around pain relief see http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal. So there is some evidence when we know what to look for.
At the end of the day even scientists are susceptible to interpreting the things that they can observe with their senses in accordance with their own personal agendas in exactly the same way as creationists can read the Bible to support their own positions.
You have observed dark energy if you have ever observed a picture of a galaxy. Dark energy is the added variable to our models to keep galaxies from flying apart. Once again, you have definitely seen the observation involved with dark energy, even if dark energy hasn't been flushed out.
Your link is broken, but either way, pain relief is very susceptible to the placebo effect. I would hope you could demonstrate the power of prayer, if it were real, to be significantly more powerful than a sugar pill, but that is unfortunately what these kinds of positive study results usually come down to.
If, as many astrophysicists postulate, our universe is uniformly surrounded by some ten-to-the-power-nineteen local universes (a.k.a. the local "multiverse") then what would an apple floating now at the periphery of our universe do? Float away from it according to "all existing knowledge" owing to the superior pull of the local systems around us. A contemporary Newton located at that periphery would immediately understand this observation. Perhaps this pull is also the cause for the accelerated expansion of our universe. Whatever the cause for expansion the local universes and later the whole multiverse may merge into a single super-universe because there is no reason to postulate that other universes are not expanding too. It will be up to astrophysicists of Einsteinian brain power to find out whether that super-universe is stable or whether it will eventually fragment owing to the slightest disturbance with each fragment swiftly collapsing into another proto-big-bang entity a.s.o, i.e. eternal. What I have written here is neither an experiment nor an observation. It is a hypothetical scientific bauble.
A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Then why do only creationists agree with it?
"One doesn’t even have to be religious to believe the universe is intelligenÂtly organized"
You are at least a deist.
A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
A Few Impertinent Questions aboiut Autism, Freudianism and Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Other animals besides humans can be considered intelligent.
" PersonallyÂ, I've found atheistic materialisÂts just as resistant to any compassion and understandÂing except their own version of it."
Athiests just don't believe the mumbo jumbo, nothing more nothing less.