Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Science has been unfairly hijacked by atheism

"To prove that God does not exist we will turn to science ..."

1. Most atheists do not turn to science to disprove god.
2. Trying to disprove god is a disservice to god.
3. OTOH, it's necessary not to disprove god.

"Ring of Power" is a central theme in Tolkein's "Lord of the Ring" books. In this case, the ring of power is religion with its claims to knowledge about the physical world.

"Ring of Power" is a central theme in Tolkein's "Lord of the Ring" books. In this case, the ring of power is religion with its claims to knowledge about the physical world. Clearly it's a corrupting an poisonous influence. Those who invoke it would do so with the best of intentions and yet be corrupted by it.

WE NEED TO BEWARE OF MAKING SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS
--positive, negative or otherwise.
====================================================
Sure there is a role for the process of generalizing, but it can lead to false conclusions.

For example: Theists say God is all good--that which includes all morals and ethics.; God is all light, all love and all spirit.

Some theists--notice that I said some, not all--will say: "Atheists say, there is no God; therefore, atheists are not good, do not have morals and ethics, prefer darkness, are unloving and devoid of spirit."

Much prejudice is the result of over generalizing. I presume we can agree that generalizing about ideas, statements, principles, or rules can be very dangerous unless the ideas, etc., are based on well-stated definitions and researched facts.

What do you think?

Rev-The inventors of the Bomb did so in the hope of discovering not only as terrifying weapon but also the source of energy that would be available as a result of 'splitting the atom'. Whilst I do not even begin to understand what was intended by all of the scientists, it is certain many had regrets at the way things turned out. Generalisations and prejudice run hand in hand, and there is little an individual can do against them. However the Ring of Power analogy from the Lord of the Rings story is a very potent image in the presentation of the two sides of a choice. At some stage it will be possible to make a choice that will cause no harm, possibly do good and will also leave the chooser unharmed. That choice does not have to relate to the person's religion or come as a result of prayer or divine intervention. It comes as the result of the person's own ethical understanding of their own moral obligations.

FF- Tolkein was a christian wasn't he?

FF- Tolkein was a christian wasn't he?

Was he active, or just nominal? Anyone know. There is a difference.

Tolkein was Catholic and was profoundly religious in nearly every aspect of his life. He was largely responsible for C. S. Lewis' conversion to Catholicism. I don't know about his church habits, but his religiosity seems to have permeated his existence. Interesting point, but utterly irrelevant to my analogy.

Science does not need the help of religion. It should not be used to support religion. Nor should science be made into a religion.

I am not sure that it is irrelevant in that Tolkein actually intended the message of the book to be the triumph of good over evil--as understood in Christian teaching. You and I are using his analogy out of his intended context, which really proves the point that it is an excellent ethical example, and one which reaches beyond the religious beliefs of its author.


FF wrote-
Science does not need the help of religion. It should not be used to support religion. Nor should science be made into a religion.

I agree and I can never understand why people who believe in the existence of a god are willing to use the framework of science to try to prove his/her existence. Surely their own faith and belief in the divine should be sufficient proof. Of course there is the doctrine that seems very seductive to many believers- that their belief is the one and only truth. But that is another question entirely!

TFF, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

You write that science should not "be made into a religion."
OK. then how come quite a number of scientists have done precisely that, with PhD's as the high priests?"

BTW, let's dialogue on what it means "to be religious".

WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THAT, "I AM RELIGIOUS".
==============================================
I confess: I am religious.

However, this does not mean that I am a bigot ( a by-god-it--that is, one who says: I have the truth). By "religious" I mean that I have a strong desire to be a moral, ethical and loving human being. In other words, I am one who is willing to live in grace and peace with all other human beings, including agnostics and atheists.

In response, how say you?

BTW, beginning early tomorrow morning, around 7 AM, Jean and I will, by plane, be visiting sunny and warm Florida, we will be back about March 20. Jean has a sister, from New Brunswick, who lives there most of the Canadian winter.

FOR YOUR INFO: The weather, in Toronto today, is still wintery. However, it is wintery-pleasant--not at all like it was a week or so ago. Then it was bitter cold. Some flights were cancelled.

"then how come quite a number of scientists have done precisely that, with PhD's as the high priests?"

"They" haven't done anything of the sort. The problem is that learning science takes effort. And most people are not willing to put in the kind of effort necessary to understand. Science is not at all like religion. You don't have to believe and you don't have to have faith.

I'm sure there is some obscure way that one can say that science is religion and bowling is religion and that coffee is religion. I'm not interested in that sort of word game.

Yes it is belief and faith that are the corner stone of religions. This is not true of science - in fact the direct opposite is true, I think, as science seems to constantly choose to challenge and test previously accepted results and dogmas.

I know a few PhDs, (2 are family), and 'priestly' is not a word I'd use of them (now annoying-- that's a possibility!) Scepticism also is part of their make-up, and that is something that a dedicated priest does not, or maybe cannot, allow himself to feel in regard to his/her beliefs.

I agree that science has been "hijacked" by aethism but not without good reason. Religion starts out with the belief that God is real, and then everything else follows. Science on the other hand, starts out with the belief that nothing is real until proven otherwise. Since god cannot be proven, science does support the claim that god is nor real. The intimate definition of the scientific method is what intertwines it with aethism. Therefore, I wouldn't say it has neccesarily been hijacked, cause true science will inevitably lead to aethism until a proof of God is found.

For those who say science and god are just beliefs, and that science makes no more sense than god:
If you were dying and had to choose between the two beliefs: Science (drugs, treatment) or God (prayers) which one would you choose? Remeber, you're choosing between the two, and cannot choose both.

Obviously, almost everyone will choose treatments which we know work. I hope this shows the difference between science and god. Science is a system of true and tested ideas which lead to ACTUAL results, rather than a system of BELIEFS where you hope that your prayers will be answered by some entity you have never met. This is why the idea of science, and based on it, the idea of aethism hold credibility.

I don't think science supports the claim that god is not real. I do agree with you about the difference between science and religion.

Greetings,

To be quick, and simple, i would at least like to throw this out there:

Why even have this conversation? ESPECIALLY if you're not going to start it off with a definition. 'god' is a wildly subjective term that literally has hundreds of intepritations.

Am i way off base here? How could this conversation possibly lead to anything but a bunch of disconnected opinions based on vaguely disclosed personal beliefs?

Why not start it off like this, and go from there: 'I think god is -INSERT BELIEF HERE- and in order to prove its existence i am going to -INSERT EXPERIMENT HERE-

To use non-standardized and highly controversial, subjective, terminology is to do nothing but further dilute the topic of any valuable/potential merit. In my opinion of course.

Be peaceful on your way,
Time_Spiraling

Since god cannot be proven, science does support the claim that god is nor real. The intimate definition of the scientific method is what intertwines it with aethism. Therefore, I wouldn't say it has neccesarily been hijacked, cause true science will inevitably lead to aethism until a proof of God is found.

Kevat Shaw, you write Writing in the spirit of dialogue: I preume you have taken note that I am a unitheist. For me, GOD is not an objectively real person but a concept. This means that I think of the physical universe--the part explored by science--as part of GOD.

Having proved the partial reality of GOD, science will help me prove the total reality of GOD, eventually.

I would say instead: The intimate definition of the scientific method is what should intertwine it with agnosticism.


Of course science hasn't been hijacked by atheists - it's been handed to them on a silver platter - or, at least, it's been handed to agnostics...

If a survey says, "Do you believe in God?", and you answer "No", it doesn't automatically follow that you think God is an absolute(!) impossibility...

Since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, how is it more scientific to claim certainty of one case rather than the other? - Perhaps, in either case, such a claim requires faith that an unknown is actually a fact.

agnosticism

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.