Philosopher Ruse as an entertainer

Suppose we agree to the conflict thesis throughout, and that if you accept modern science then religion—pretty much all religion, certainly pretty much all religion that Americans want to accept—is false. Is it then constitutional to teach science?

If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

Proofread, RBH! Revise this

"That is all that’s required to meet the Constitutional test, much as a comparative religion class must be taught agnostically in public schools would meet that test."

Supernaturalism is by definition neither proveable nor disprovable, since it is by definition a violation of the rules, and on the basis of the rules it is impossible to say that violations can't happen.

Which is not to say there aren't, ahem, a few problems with the notion, my top three being:

1: "My supernatural is as good as yours." I can maintain the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and defy anyone to prove me wrong.

2: Negative argument. Supernatural events being outside the rules, they don't follow from the rules, and if observed they are not duplicable and cannot be subjected to practical inspection. So if any proof is offered it's just "there's no other way it
could have happened." An argument with a set of problems of its own ...

3: Practical uselessness. Since supernatural events are by nature unpredictable, not duplicable, and beyond inspection, they cannot be used as the basis of a technology, nor can any plans be made predicated on supernatural intervention -- or at least any more than they would be based on blind luck.

Beliefs in supernaturalism are common and, having no particular motive in arguing against them myself, I see no reason to bother, but I have to admit that I don't understand their appeal.

I think there has been a misunderstanding. Ruse is not arguing that science is religion, rather he argues that Barash's anti-NOMA position, if taken seriously, leads to the conclusion that Mark Perakh cites in his article. Ruse may be wrong on this, but he is not arguing against the demarcation. In fact, he has been strongly criticized for his testimony in McLean by some because of the supposed extremist pro-demarcation position.

If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

I always viewed this question to mean that science invokes NO supernatural causes or forces, but that science never implied that God did, or did not, exist, and that it got along just fine with that approach. OTOH, there is no test for the existence of God to my knowledge, so equating science with creationism sounds pretty lame. Perhaps what Ruse is premising his argument on is the personal beliefs of people like Dawkins, et. al, which in that respect are irrelevant to science, but tend to taint the neutrality of the scientific case.

Ghrom said: I think there has been a misunderstanding. Ruse is not arguing that science is religion, rather he argues that Barash's anti-NOMA position, if taken seriously, leads to the conclusion that Mark Perakh cites in his article.

DavidK said: If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught? I always viewed this question to mean that science invokes NO supernatural causes or forces, but that science never implied that God did, or did not, exist, and that it got along just fine with that approach. OTOH, there is no test for the existence of God to my knowledge, so equating science with creationism sounds pretty lame. Perhaps what Ruse is premising his argument on is the personal beliefs of people like Dawkins, et. al, which in that respect are irrelevant to science, but tend to taint the neutrality of the scientific case.

DavidK said: If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim?

And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

mrg said: I think as a legal opinion (which has a status dangerously different from other sorts of opinion) one is left with the unavoidable choice of either saying science is neutral on religion OR walking into a constitutional "kill zone".

Though I have to say there's an out for Ruse: The excessive entanglement prong of Lemon. Hm. Gotta think about that some.

RBH said: False dichotomy. A third alternative is to say nothing about the metaphysical implications (or lack thereof) of the science in public school classrooms, which is the venue of interest in Ruse's article. See above: taught agnostically. Focus, people!

Science is antagonistic to religion only in the sense that some religions believe that if you aren't part of the solution, you must be part of the problem. And science isn't part of the solution. Science commits two sins: (1) it omits any involvement of any gods in any of its explanations of anything; and (2) it WORKS, the explanations survive tests and make good predictions. Science renders the gods useless, irrelevant, superfluous. Of course that's going to be regarded as antagonistic.

Mark writes

I doubt that all the multiple opuses debating various aspects of the philosophy of science have ever produced even a minute amount of anything that could be helpful for a scientist, be he/she physicist, biologist, geologist, you name it.

How is that different from claiming, "I doubt if all the multiple histories of the 17th and 18th Centuries have ever produced even a minute amount of anything that could be helpful to a king, be he Hanoverian, Hapsburg, Hollenzollerin, or Bourbon, you name it."

The thing about parochial criticisms of the philosophy of science, as opposed to specific criticisms of specific philosophies of science, is that they are parochial, i.e., they assume that doing science is somehow privileged over other human activities. Now I understand that ornithology isn't very interesting to the birds, but we're not all birds.

Flint said: Science is antagonistic to religion only in the sense that some religions believe that if you aren't part of the solution, you must be part of the problem. And science isn't part of the solution. Science commits two sins: (1) it omits any involvement of any gods in any of its explanations of anything; and (2) it WORKS, the explanations survive tests and make good predictions. Science renders the gods useless, irrelevant, superfluous. Of course that's going to be regarded as antagonistic.

Seems a silly question. There aren't any gods in the music department either, so is it unconstitutional to teach music? How about law? Sheesh.

Couple of points.

First, the link is wrong:

https://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/

Second, it's "Curriculum".

Third, there is an increasing number of scientists who seem to think it's cute to attack philosophy of science when one of us says something they do not like. Despite the fact that this is the fallacy of composition (all scientists should at least learn the fallacies), in almost every case something more subtle is being said that the scientist doesn't like for philosophical reasons.

The alternative to philosophy of science is not no philosophy of science. It's bad philosophy of science. And scientists do bad philosophy all the time. I tire of these disciplinary competitions.

Now I don't like NOMA; it's simplistic. Science and religion elbow each other for space on the cultural dance floor. This means that yes, they do compete occasionally. When they do, either religion is making a scientific or factual claim, which can be dealt with scientifically, or science is making a religious claim.

When (not if) scientists do make quasi or actually religious claims, and for my money the claim "there is no God" is a religious claim, then they are rightly taken to task for it. You may very well think that science shows there is no need for a deity, and if so, fine. But science no more proves that, or even makes it more likely, than it does proves that Buddhism is true, or whatever pro-religious claims are made on the basis of science.

Alas I cannot read Ruse's piece now, as the site is failing to connect. But in the past he has made the claim that some aspects of science are used religiously. This is not news. Everyone from Marx and Lenin to the pope tries to employ science to underpin their beliefs. When it happens, we rightly should reject it. And under no circumstances should philosophical or religious beliefs be taught as true in a science class. You don't like belief in God, and think it is not warranted by science? Well that's great. I agree. But I would never want to see that taught in a science class. It isn't science.

And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught

Science renders the gods useless, irrelevant, superfluous. Of course that’s going to be regarded as antagonistic.

Flint said: Science is antagonistic to religion only in the sense that some religions believe that if you aren't part of the solution, you must be part of the problem. And science isn't part of the solution. Science commits two sins: (1) it omits any involvement of any gods in any of its explanations of anything; and (2) it WORKS, the explanations survive tests and make good predictions. Science renders the gods useless, irrelevant, superfluous. Of course that's going to be regarded as antagonistic.

phhht said: And finally, science refutes the "My supernatural is as good as yours" argument with objective reality.

John Wilkins said: Now I don't like NOMA; it's simplistic.

mrg said:

phhht said: And finally, science refutes the "My supernatural is as good as yours" argument with objective reality.

Nah. Supernatural means by definition "outside of the rules" and is irrefutable. But you are hitting a fourth problem with supernaturalism here: if you're using supernaturalism as an explanation for something that IS covered by the rules, it can't compete.

phhht said: ... while safely, profitably ignoring notions like the supernatural.

You may very well think that science shows there is no need for a deity, and if so, fine. But science no more proves that, or even makes it more likely, than it does proves that Buddhism is true, or whatever pro-religious claims are made on the basis of science.

I think the issue being raised here is: would it be a good thing to establish that science is antagonistic to religion as a LEGAL opinion?

And if it was established as factual, there would be no way to avoid it being established as a legal opinion.

As far as I can think out, if it's not to be established as a legal opinion, that means it has to be established as a philosophical / personal opinion.

I don’t mean to sound too flippant, but it seems to me that the issue comes down to whether or not one can design and build a deity detector.

All you have to do is work through the epistemological issues of converting the presence of a deity into a signal that can be observed by anyone despite their religious or nonreligious views.

Of course, the non-presence of any particular deity, or the sorting of deities by some set of criteria, is also an issue.

Now this isn’t a trivial exercise by any means; but it is one that most people attempting to argue about deities have apparently not thought through. Physicists have had to deal with these kinds of epistemological issues in the detection and study of very subtle phenomena for a couple of hundred years now.

By not having gone through this exercise in any serious manner, it becomes easy for people to imagine they can assert the existence of something without ever thinking about how one would go about showing it (ontology with no epistemology).

And if one cannot specify even in principle how to go about detecting something, one should bite his/her tongue until he/she has a clue.

This has been a surprisingly mild thread so far. I was expecting it to become much more extreme.

Ruse's comments indirectly hit a hot button. I maintain there is an argument over science education, and an argument over religion -- and they tend to work against each other, they should be kept separate. NCSE gets slammed for "accomodationism", but since they are by charter fully on the side of the argument over science education, I don't see they have a choice.

Incidentally, it would almost certainly be illegal for public high school science teacher to say that "science proves there is no God".

It would be illegal for the same reason that teaching creationism is illegal. The government of the United States is forbidden by the constitution to favor or attack particular religious opinions.

As for religious teachings being coincidentally at odds with mainstream science, that's just tough. That brilliant piece of philosophy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, demonstrates why. Anyone can and will create a religious belief that condemns or contradicts anything. The state has a compelling interest in having citizens educated in literacy, basic mathematics, science, geography, history, and so on. Yet any body of expertise, no matter how uncontroversial, will contradict some arbitrary belief system.

Therefore, the state cannot show favoritism to one sect or cult, but can teach math, science, ability to read and write, and other basic subjects, even though these subjects may and almost certainly will unintentionally contradict some arbitrary belief system.

RBH said: False dichotomy. A third alternative is to say nothing about the metaphysical implications (or lack thereof) of the science in public school classrooms, which is the venue of interest in Ruse's article. See above: taught agnostically. Focus, people!

It is not only science which can come in conflict with some aspects of some religions.

I dare say, there is no sphere of activity which does not conflict with some aspect of some religions.

Religions are so varied in what they cover, that this is not only on matters of propositions of belief being in conflict with the findings of fields as varied as history and linguistics.

There are religions which act in conflict with the law. There are religions which are pacifist. There are religions which do not allow oaths, or which consume intoxicants, or which would not allow certain practices even by those not of their religion.

Somehow or other a society with a commitment to freedom of religion must deal with the inevitable conflicts. And adherents to religions who choose to live in a pluralistic society must make their own accommodations.

How is science in any different position?

John Pieret said: Not necessarily true.

mrg said:

DavidK said: If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim?

Yeah, that's the problem with crossing that line, because either way it becomes a theological argument. Now if people want to cross that line, no complaints here, but it sure doesn't sound like science any more.

And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

I think as a legal opinion (which has a status dangerously different from other sorts of opinion) one is left with the unavoidable choice of either saying science is neutral on religion OR walking into a constitutional "kill zone".

I dare say, there is no sphere of activity which does not conflict with some aspect of some religions.

Flint said: Science doesn't become religious because some religious people don't like it, anymore than a cement block becomes an animal because a vegeterian doesn't want to eat it.

Ruse doesn't present as an accommodationist. He is a collaborator; significantly more dangerous.

The point is that Ruse’s assertion (“science… implies that God does not exist”) is not true

Suppose we agree to the conflict thesis throughout and that if you accept modern science then religion—pretty much all religion, certainly pretty much all religion that Americans want to accept—is false. Is it then constitutional to teach science?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want science removed from schools. I want an answer to my question, one which comes up because of the dictates of the Constitution. The independence position does not raise this issue, because it argues that science has no implications either way about religious claims.

... science has no implications either way about religious claims.

The question of whether, beyond the “natural” universe which can be studied by scientific means exists something “supernatural” is neither asked nor answered by science.

GRRR. EDIT BUTTON! WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ONE! *mumble* *grumble*

Anyway, obviously that should read "argue about" or "argue for", and I change my subject from the opinions themselves to the people holding those opinions. Drat.

Before discussing Ruse’s idea, let me evince my (admittedly controversial) view of philosophy of science. I dare to claim that the sole value of philosophy of science is its entertaining ability. I doubt that all the multiple opuses debating various aspects of the philosophy of science have ever produced even a minute amount of anything that could be helpful for a scientist, be he/she physicist, biologist, geologist, you name it.

The independence position does not raise this issue, because it argues that science has no implications either way about religious claims.

As a non-philosopher of science, I want to throw-in that it does have a good deal of value. Without a robust exposure to (at a minimum) issues that were raised by Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos one is highly likely to develop a very simplistic view of the scientific enterprise. In fact there is quite a bit of research into including some rather intriguing studies about teachers understanding of philosophy of science. Philosophy and history of science help to describe the field of scientific inquiry, which is very important to understanding how science works.

If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

Steve Matheson said: Wow. I'm surprised that you all find anything worthy of discussing in an incoherent and idiotic post that starts with this...

Before discussing Ruse’s idea, let me evince my (admittedly controversial) view of philosophy of science. I dare to claim that the sole value of philosophy of science is its entertaining ability. I doubt that all the multiple opuses debating various aspects of the philosophy of science have ever produced even a minute amount of anything that could be helpful for a scientist, be he/she physicist, biologist, geologist, you name it.

...and then proceeds to ignore the only point that Ruse was making. I'm no big fan of Ruse, but this is the worst post I've seen on PT in at least a year. Really embarrassing.

Very happy to see you post again Mark. Hope you are doing well.

That said, I have to take strong exception to your assertion that philosophy of science has never produced anything useful to scientists. As a scientist, what little I know and understand of philosophy of science has certainly helped me think more clearly about what I do, and sometimes helped me to do it better. Equally importantly, it has helped me express general scientific ideas to the public more clearly and accurately.

I am well aware that many scientists, perhaps most, do perfectly good science without much awareness of epistemological concepts, but that doesn't mean that those concepts aren't implicitly applied in their work, and there because of a scientific environment that actively recognizes them and values them. One should just read scientific articles from a couple centuries ago to realize that science has made enormous strides in rigorousness and consistency, which are almost entirely due to people - both scientists and philosophers - taking the time to think about and define what science actually is and how to best make it work.

Dornier Pfeil said: Ruse doesn't present as an accommodationist. He is a collaborator; significantly more dangerous.

To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

John Kwok said: But you forget, oh worthy Federation starship captain that science doesn't deal with issues of faith. Whether GOD(s) exist is utterly irrelevant to science, and even theistic scientists like Ken Miller, Vatican Astronomer - and Jesuit Brother - Guy Consolmagno, Steve Matheson, Keith Miller, and Michael Rosenzweig, to name but a few, clearly recognize this:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

Maybe you ought to emulate your friends living on Qo'nos, my dear Captain Kirk. When their GODS became too meddlesome in their daily lives, the Klingons had the good sense to kill them or have them banished from their homeworld.

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

Capt. Kirk said: I was hoping for a more mature, intelligent response.

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

Capt. Kirk said: I was hoping for a more mature, intelligent response.

Robin said: What area of science indicates such?

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

John Pieret said:

RBH said: False dichotomy. A third alternative is to say nothing about the metaphysical implications (or lack thereof) of the science in public school classrooms, which is the venue of interest in Ruse's article. See above: taught agnostically. Focus, people!

Not necessarily true. After all, ID is an attempt to teach a metaphysical position "agnostically" by saying nothing (overt) about the metaphysical implications. If there was some sort of "objective" evidence that science was, despite what its practitioners and advocates publicly state, an anti-theistic position, that might be enough to make it unconstitutional ... just as Judge Jones found in the case of ID.

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

ben said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

No, not so long as one stipulates that the definition of a god necessarily includes "cannot be detected or verified". But if one assumes that something exists, yes its existence cannot, even in principle, be detected or verified, what relevance can possibly be assigned to it? A god is there, but can it never be found. A god can act, but no such godly act can ever be detected as assignable to a god. OK. What then is the point of this "god" concept, if its existence is, in principle, indistinguishable from its non-existence?

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

TomS said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

It depends upon the god. Read "Bel and the Dragon", the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical additions to the book of Daniel, in which the hero applies naturalistic reasoning to demonstrate the non-existence of certain gods. Or take a look at the Wikipedia reference to St. Boniface and Donar's Oak. The saint demonstrated, by natural means, to the local population that their god Donar (Thor) was unreal. It is true that when faced with the immense variety of concepts of possible gods that it is impossible to demonstrate anything about gods in general. The worshipers of Bel or Thor could have slightly modified their beliefs to accommodate the naturalistic demonstrations.

someone more elequent that I summariszed the difference between science and religion thusly:

[Science] WORKS, bitches!

http://www.xkcd.com/836/

science education is/should be/ must be limited to what WORKS

JASONMITCHELL said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

that is a true statement - that is why the existence (or non- existence) of God(s) is irrelevant to science (and by extension science education)- as noted earlier the statement "There is no God" is a religious claim and cannot be made in a science class. I there is a very important point that bears repeating - Science does NOT imply the non-existence of god(s) acceptance of science does not require atheism

(Good to see you are posting Mark).

Ruse writes, “The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution separates science and religion. (Don’t get into arguments about wording. That is how it has been interpreted.)”

This statement is dumb. Literally- as Ruse for the first time in the history of philosophy wants to avoid speaking about the meaning of words. But we cannot mute the question of Constitutional interpretation. The “wall of separation” articulated by Jefferson regarding the establishment clause was used to reassure the Baptists (then a politically weak sect) that their religious practices would not be suppressed. But the State has suppressed many religious practices that were deeply held and ancient. Human sacrifice for just one example. So, the “wall” can be breached in the face of a sufficiently persuasive argument of “collective good.” Indeed, the efficacy of human sacrifice need not be even denied for it to be outlawed.

Even if I were to accept the rest of Ruse’s suggestion (which I don’t), teaching science would still be allowed under the Constitution as it contributes greatly to the common good in quantitative terms, and the potential metaphysical, or spiritual harm does not. As there are many who profess a religious faith while also affirming the basic tenants of science, I would argue that there is no demonstrated spiritual risk at all.

Capt. Kirk said:

TomS said: It is true that when faced with the immense variety of concepts of possible gods that it is impossible to demonstrate anything about gods in general.

Can science test and verify the non-existence of every God(s)? In other words, even if the non-existence of some God is easy to verify, does that mean science can weed out every God?

mrg said:

Robin said: What area of science indicates such?

There are people who make a case that they can identify such. Not that I can give specifics, because I usually avoid arguing with them. But I would point to the common troll accusation that "evo science is just an attack on religion" as a interesting case in this matter. Not even the most outspoken atheist scientist will agree with that accusation, because it would imply that evo science doesn't stand on its merits in the evidence. The reality is that if one could magically snap fingers and make all trace of religion disappear, evo science would not look the slightest bit different. (Though admittedly a huge volume of quarreling would disappear as well.) The same can be said of any scientific theory.

Capt. Kirk said:

JASONMITCHELL said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

that is a true statement - that is why the existence (or non- existence) of God(s) is irrelevant to science (and by extension science education)- as noted earlier the statement "There is no God" is a religious claim and cannot be made in a science class. I there is a very important point that bears repeating - Science does NOT imply the non-existence of god(s) acceptance of science does not require atheism

It's true that acceptance of science does not require atheism, but is the existence or non-existence of God(s) irrelevant to science, or should it be. Can it truly be?

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God. No such stipulation is necessary or required. If science says or implies that there is no God or Gods, that puts the burden of proof on science. Non-believers in a God or Gods, on this forum and elsewhere, expect believers, who say there is a God(s), to scientifically verify the existence of their God(s). They also expect believers to define and design a detector and other tests by which to scientifically verify the existence of their God. Is it unreasonable for believers to expect the same level of testability and verifiability from science, if science says or implies there is no God(s)? If so, why? Can science test and verify the non-existence of every God(s)? In other words, even if the non-existence of some God is easy to verify, does that mean science can weed out every God?

Capt. Kirk said:

JASONMITCHELL said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

that is a true statement - that is why the existence (or non- existence) of God(s) is irrelevant to science (and by extension science education)- as noted earlier the statement "There is no God" is a religious claim and cannot be made in a science class. I there is a very important point that bears repeating - Science does NOT imply the non-existence of god(s) acceptance of science does not require atheism

It's true that acceptance of science does not require atheism, but is the existence or non-existence of God(s) irrelevant to science, or should it be. Can it truly be?

Capt. Kirk said:

ben said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

No, not so long as one stipulates that the definition of a god necessarily includes "cannot be detected or verified". But if one assumes that something exists, yes its existence cannot, even in principle, be detected or verified, what relevance can possibly be assigned to it? A god is there, but can it never be found. A god can act, but no such godly act can ever be detected as assignable to a god. OK. What then is the point of this "god" concept, if its existence is, in principle, indistinguishable from its non-existence?

No such stipulation is necessary or required. If science says or implies that there is no God or Gods, that puts the burden of proof on science.

Non-believers in a God or Gods, on this forum and elsewhere, expect believers, who say there is a God(s), to scientifically verify the existence of their God(s). They also expect believers to define and design a detector and other tests by which to scientifically verify the existence of their God.

Is it unreasonable for believers to expect the same level of testability and verifiability from science, if science says or implies there is no God(s)? If so, why?

Robin said:

mrg said:

Robin said: What area of science indicates such?

There are people who make a case that they can identify such. Not that I can give specifics, because I usually avoid arguing with them. But I would point to the common troll accusation that "evo science is just an attack on religion" as a interesting case in this matter. Not even the most outspoken atheist scientist will agree with that accusation, because it would imply that evo science doesn't stand on its merits in the evidence. The reality is that if one could magically snap fingers and make all trace of religion disappear, evo science would not look the slightest bit different. (Though admittedly a huge volume of quarreling would disappear as well.) The same can be said of any scientific theory.

Well, FL has certainly made related claims implying that science denies his god, but that's the point of my question - I want someone like FL or this person "Colin" to point to a specific instance where an actual scientific claim of disproof of their god has been made. I'm certainly not aware of any such cases. I know that folks like Coyne and Dawkins make proclamations all the time about the evils of religion and the virtues of atheism and such, but all those proclamations fall really under the domain of philosophy and opinion, not science. But even if we were to assume that such comes from science, they are still not claims that any god has been disproved. So I just don't see what "Colin's" point is. As to the rest of your post, mrg, of course I agree.

Capt. Kirk said: It's true that acceptance of science does not require atheism, but is the existence or non-existence of God(s) irrelevant to science, or should it be. Can it truly be?

Robin said: I know that folks like Coyne and Dawkins make proclamations all the time about the evils of religion and the virtues of atheism and such, but all those proclamations fall really under the domain of philosophy and opinion, not science.

Capt. Kirk said:

Robin said: (beginning snipped for brevity) But even if we were to assume that such comes from science, they are still not claims that any god has been disproved. So I just don't see what "Colin's" point is.

So you're saying then that any claim that there is no God(s) is not and cannot be scientific, and is strictly based on opinion and philosophy?

Who are Colin and FL? I don't see anything from a Colin or FL in this discussion.

Robin said:

Capt. Kirk said:

ben said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God.

No, not so long as one stipulates that the definition of a god necessarily includes "cannot be detected or verified". But if one assumes that something exists, yes its existence cannot, even in principle, be detected or verified, what relevance can possibly be assigned to it? A god is there, but can it never be found. A god can act, but no such godly act can ever be detected as assignable to a god. OK. What then is the point of this "god" concept, if its existence is, in principle, indistinguishable from its non-existence?

No such stipulation is necessary or required. If science says or implies that there is no God or Gods, that puts the burden of proof on science.

Not when the believers have not met the burden of substantiating their "god". See my post above - anyone can make a claim of existence, but the default is always non-existence until there is substantiation.

Non-believers in a God or Gods, on this forum and elsewhere, expect believers, who say there is a God(s), to scientifically verify the existence of their God(s). They also expect believers to define and design a detector and other tests by which to scientifically verify the existence of their God.

We expect such only of those "believers" who wish to have their claims of some "god" taken scientifically seriously. If you don't care whether your claims about your "god" are taken as credible and aren't insisting that your beliefs deserve to be addressed as factual in public schools and endorsed by the government, then you aren't obligated to offer anything other than your beliefs. If, otoh, you DO want your belief claims to be take seriously and as factual, then you have to substantiate them. Simple as that.

Is it unreasonable for believers to expect the same level of testability and verifiability from science, if science says or implies there is no God(s)? If so, why?

It is completely unreasonable to expect science to provide detailed evidence against something that you have provided no evidence for - see above.

mrg said:

Robin said: I know that folks like Coyne and Dawkins make proclamations all the time about the evils of religion and the virtues of atheism and such, but all those proclamations fall really under the domain of philosophy and opinion, not science.

Yeah, but you do run into people who get indignant at the suggestion that "science and religion are compatible" and start complaining about "accommodationism".

Like I said, I tend to find NOMA annoying -- even being charitable to religion, all one can say is: "Science is about the evidence; you don't like the evidence, you just have to deal with it." -- but as a policy statement (if not necessarily a perfect statement of fact) it sure works for me.

Robin said: Quite true, but what's that have to do with "Colin's" question regarding claims about the disproof of God?

Capt. Kirk said: What if this were looked at from truly neutral ground? No arbitrary "default". Both sides make a claim. Both sides are asked or expected by the other side to test and verify their claim. If neither side can test and verify their claim, then don't both sides have equal status?

Capt. Kirk said: Isn't your default based on your personal opinion and philosophy? Are you the person who establishes defaults for all mankind? Have you or any other atheists met your burden of substantiating the non-existence of every God? What if this were looked at from truly neutral ground? No arbitrary "default". Both sides make a claim. Both sides are asked or expected by the other side to test and verify their claim. If neither side can test and verify their claim, then don't both sides have equal status?

Robin said:

Capt. Kirk said:

Robin said: (beginning snipped for brevity) But even if we were to assume that such comes from science, they are still not claims that any god has been disproved. So I just don't see what "Colin's" point is.

So you're saying then that any claim that there is no God(s) is not and cannot be scientific, and is strictly based on opinion and philosophy?

No, I'm saying that I'm not aware of any such claims in the first place and certainly none that come from science.

Who are Colin and FL? I don't see anything from a Colin or FL in this discussion.

Heh! Well, given your moniker and discourse, I'm sure you won't mind my referring to you as "Colin". As for FL - you can find references to his posts throughout this site and under the heading "Forum" at the top of the page.

Capt. Kirk said:

Robin said: Not when the believers have not met the burden of substantiating their "god". See my post above - anyone can make a claim of existence, but the default is always non-existence until there is substantiation.

Is it unreasonable for believers to expect the same level of testability and verifiability from science, if science says or implies there is no God(s)? If so, why?

It is completely unreasonable to expect science to provide detailed evidence against something that you have provided no evidence for - see above.

Isn't your default based on your personal opinion and philosophy?

Are you the person who establishes defaults for all mankind?

Have you or any other atheists met your burden of substantiating the non-existence of every God?

What if this were looked at from truly neutral ground? No arbitrary "default". Both sides make a claim. Both sides are asked or expected by the other side to test and verify their claim. If neither side can test and verify their claim, then don't both sides have equal status?

Capt. Kirk said: Isn't your default based on your personal opinion and philosophy? Are you the person who establishes defaults for all mankind? Have you or any other atheists met your burden of substantiating the non-existence of every God? What if this were looked at from truly neutral ground? No arbitrary "default". Both sides make a claim. Both sides are asked or expected by the other side to test and verify their claim. If neither side can test and verify their claim, then don't both sides have equal status?

Mike Clinch -

Yes, of course, as soon as someone makes the existence of their deity dependent on a claim that science happens to evaluate - which is what creationists do, and you don't - then those particular, specific claims can be rebutted by science.

It's interesting. Creationists are motivated to claim that the Bible is "literally true" in order to advance the argument that society as a whole is obligated to observe their particular biases and taboos.

In order to achieve that, they declare the Bible "literal", so that their harsh, simplistic ideas can't be argued against on the grounds of interpretation.

Yet, ironically, by taking this concrete approach, they create the situation in which their particular dogma is shown to be objectively false.

harold said: Mike Clinch - Yes, of course, as soon as someone makes the existence of their deity dependent on a claim that science happens to evaluate - which is what creationists do, and you don't - then those particular, specific claims can be rebutted by science. It's interesting. Creationists are motivated to claim that the Bible is "literally true" in order to advance the argument that society as a whole is obligated to observe their particular biases and taboos. In order to achieve that, they declare the Bible "literal", so that their harsh, simplistic ideas can't be argued against on the grounds of interpretation. Yet, ironically, by taking this concrete approach, they create the situation in which their particular dogma is shown to be objectively false.

mrg said:

Robin said: Quite true, but what's that have to do with "Colin's" question regarding claims about the disproof of God?

Nothing, I wasn't paying much attention to that branch off the conversation.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Capt. Kirk said: What if this were looked at from truly neutral ground? No arbitrary "default". Both sides make a claim. Both sides are asked or expected by the other side to test and verify their claim. If neither side can test and verify their claim, then don't both sides have equal status?

Right. You don't know what you're talking about, do you? There is no neutral ground here, unless you'd like to extend the benefit of the doubt to every concept of deity that has ever been produced by every culture on the face of the Earth. Since so many of them contradict each other, you may be some time sorting out which of these we ought to test. One side must restrict itself to the available evidence. The other may be permitted to invent from whole cloth. That's not 'neutral'. Objective reality is not an arbitrary default. It's what remains even if we choose not to believe in it. The MadPanda, FCD

Capt. Kirk said:

Robin said:

Capt. Kirk said:

Robin said: (beginning snipped for brevity) But even if we were to assume that such comes from science, they are still not claims that any god has been disproved. So I just don't see what "Colin's" point is.

So you're saying then that any claim that there is no God(s) is not and cannot be scientific, and is strictly based on opinion and philosophy?

No, I'm saying that I'm not aware of any such claims in the first place and certainly none that come from science.

Who are Colin and FL? I don't see anything from a Colin or FL in this discussion.

Heh! Well, given your moniker and discourse, I'm sure you won't mind my referring to you as "Colin". As for FL - you can find references to his posts throughout this site and under the heading "Forum" at the top of the page.

You're dancing around my question.

I don't know who Colin is but if you want to address or refer to me as Colin I'll return the favor and call you Mudhen.

Capt. Kirk said: Science should always start from neutral ground, unless it has already secured evidence that legitimately establishes a different starting point. Science has no evidence that there is no God(s) whatsoever.

It's a fundamental mistake to talk of religion and gods in general. The definitions are too varied for meaningful discourse and evaluation in the context of what science has to say about them. Now specify a deity, say one who created the world 6,000 years ago, kept a large band of Jews confused and wandering a small land mass for 40 yers, and killed evey animal on earth with a flood 4,000 years ago, and those claims can be scientifically evaluated.

And when science does its thing and finds no evidence for any of these claims, the conclusion is that the evidence does not support the claim. That's as far as science can go on any topic, not just gods. It's the laymen who, upon seeing a subjectively sufficiently large number of said failures, expresses the scientific view as "this god does not exist".

That's what the science amounts to, the same as it does for unicorns, perpetual motion machines, or the theory that sunspots are responsible for global warming. Gods don't warrant special treatment, and those that purport to are nothing more than sematic dodges, akin to a child who keeps adding magic traits to Santa to keep belief alive. A bigfoot enthusiast can do just as well by imagining his monster having the power of selective invisibility. Kudos on the creativity, but it doesn't touch the scientific conclusions.

If science can't say gods don't exist, then let's be just as consistently pedantic about everything else and say it can't say bigfoot doesn't exist, or that the claims of sunspots causing global warming are wrong. It can only say about each of them that they are evidence-free at the moment.

Capt. Kirk said: Your bias is evident and your comments reflect it. Science should always start from neutral ground, unless it has already secured evidence that legitimately establishes a different starting point. Science has no evidence that there is no God(s) whatsoever.

Robin said:

Capt. Kirk said: Science should always start from neutral ground, unless it has already secured evidence that legitimately establishes a different starting point. Science has no evidence that there is no God(s) whatsoever.

While I agree in principle, the presumption of the possibility of the existence of god or gods is not a neutral starting point. In other words, lacking evidence, science cannot presume something exists.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Capt. Kirk said: Your bias is evident and your comments reflect it. Science should always start from neutral ground, unless it has already secured evidence that legitimately establishes a different starting point. Science has no evidence that there is no God(s) whatsoever.

Your bias is glaringly obvious, and your word games reflect it. The burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim. Where no extraordinary evidence is brought forth, the null hypothesis is retained. It is up to the believers to provide evidence. Anecdotes and muzzy arguments from authority don't count. Sincerity of belief doesn't count, either, nor does the popularity of a given interpretation. The MadPanda, FCD

phhht said: Science provides an alternative explanation of reality which does not depend on gods. In science, it is safe to ignore the question of the supernatural, because scientific reasoning and knowledge do not depend on it in the first place.

Robin said:

Capt. Kirk said: Science should always start from neutral ground, unless it has already secured evidence that legitimately establishes a different starting point. Science has no evidence that there is no God(s) whatsoever.

While I agree in principle, the presumption of the possibility of the existence of god or gods is not a neutral starting point. In other words, lacking evidence, science cannot presume something exists.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Capt. Kirk said: What if this were looked at from truly neutral ground? No arbitrary "default". Both sides make a claim. Both sides are asked or expected by the other side to test and verify their claim. If neither side can test and verify their claim, then don't both sides have equal status?

Right. You don't know what you're talking about, do you? There is no neutral ground here, unless you'd like to extend the benefit of the doubt to every concept of deity that has ever been produced by every culture on the face of the Earth. Since so many of them contradict each other, you may be some time sorting out which of these we ought to test. One side must restrict itself to the available evidence. The other may be permitted to invent from whole cloth. That's not 'neutral'. Objective reality is not an arbitrary default. It's what remains even if we choose not to believe in it. The MadPanda, FCD

Robin said:

Capt. Kirk said:

Robin said: Not when the believers have not met the burden of substantiating their "god". See my post above - anyone can make a claim of existence, but the default is always non-existence until there is substantiation.

Is it unreasonable for believers to expect the same level of testability and verifiability from science, if science says or implies there is no God(s)? If so, why?

It is completely unreasonable to expect science to provide detailed evidence against something that you have provided no evidence for - see above.

Isn't your default based on your personal opinion and philosophy?

No. It's the standard default that is universally taken around the world to prevent injury and loss. If you disagree, I will be happy to sell you this land just south of Hawaii. You won't be able to see it, but trust me...it's there.

Are you the person who establishes defaults for all mankind?

Since all mankind uses this default - though some folks it seems have decided to use it selectively - your question makes no sense. But again - I'll be happy to sell that land to you when you're ready. I'm sure that given your statement about the default position, that you won't be needing a deed or any verification that the land exists. Because of course, it seems you're suggesting that it's your burden to prove that the land isn't there. Have fun.

Have you or any other atheists met your burden of substantiating the non-existence of every God?

Well, I'm not an atheist, but I suppose that's irrelevant to the point. In any event, as I noted earlier - I have no burden to go and disprove ANY god until the folks claiming the existence of those gods meet their burden. It's that simple.

What if this were looked at from truly neutral ground? No arbitrary "default". Both sides make a claim. Both sides are asked or expected by the other side to test and verify their claim. If neither side can test and verify their claim, then don't both sides have equal status?

There's no rational way for anyone to make a negative claim against something that has not already been posited and defined. In other words, the only reason that anyone would ever claim there is no god or there are no gods is if the claim of the existence of god or gods had already been established and defined. For instance, I can certainly make the claim that there are not Xerzicals anywhere in the universe, but what does that mean unless someone had posited the existence of such and defined "Xerzical" in the first place? So nope...your scenario isn't an approach from neutral ground. You're scenario includes the presumption that the possible existence of a god or gods is already accepted. It isn't.

Capt. Kirk said: Yours is not a universal default. In fact, when considering that most of mankind does believe that a God exists the majority default is that a God exists. It's not "universal" but it's vastly more "standard" than yours.

Believers in a God have no burden to go and prove ANY god until the folks claiming the non-existence of those gods meet their burden. It's that simple. Anyone claiming there is no God(s) is also acting on a presumption.

Are you able to discuss something without all the childish diatribe you seem so fond of using?

From now on I will ignore any and all such comments from anyone and will only respond to reasonable comments or questions.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Capt. Kirk said: Your bias is evident and your comments reflect it. Science should always start from neutral ground, unless it has already secured evidence that legitimately establishes a different starting point. Science has no evidence that there is no God(s) whatsoever.

Your bias is glaringly obvious, and your word games reflect it. The burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim. Where no extraordinary evidence is brought forth, the null hypothesis is retained. It is up to the believers to provide evidence. Anecdotes and muzzy arguments from authority don't count. Sincerity of belief doesn't count, either, nor does the popularity of a given interpretation. The MadPanda, FCD

From now on I will ignore any and all such comments from anyone and will only respond to reasonable comments or questions.

This Capt. Kirk’s sectarian apologetics smell a lot like the arguments at AiG.

It starts by demonizing scientists by juxtaposing them with the word theist; and then builds a straw man character profile that portrays scientists as constantly using their atheistic science to disprove a particular sectarian deity.

Yet we see these same sectarians using socio/political tactics to inject their sectarian religion into the public school classroom wrapped in a patina of pseudoscience. And this is done using the excuse that atheistic scientists are forcing their “religion” into the public schools.

And we even see these sectarians setting up well-funded organizations such as the ICR, AiG, and the DI to churn out “science” that justifies their sectarian dogma.

Sectarians see demons and devils everywhere; including in the beliefs of those of other sects.

Those of us who have spent our lives doing science know that religion is irrelevant to the daily activities of doing science. It almost never comes up except in casual conversations outside of work.

It is simply a fact of life that there are no “atheistic scientists” grinding away in the laboratory attempting to disprove someone’s sectarian deity. That story is a fiction made up by paranoid sectarians seeking excuses to proselytize using the powers of secular institutions.

All one has to do is go over to AiG and look at a few videos to see the paranoia. And there are plenty of video series over there to choose from.

phhht said: These posts miss the point, it seems to me. Science doesn't consider the existence/non-existence of gods because that is not necessary in science - not because one position or the other is supported by or lacks supporting evidence.

Science provides an alternative explanation of reality which does not depend on gods. In science, it is safe to ignore the question of the supernatural, because scientific reasoning and knowledge do not depend on it in the first place. I think it is this fact which most frightens believers about science. There is no explicit rejection of the notion of the supernatural, just the de facto recognition of its utter non-necessity. Of course one can postulate gods and all the rest, but so what? Why would anybody want to?

phhht said: These posts miss the point, it seems to me. Science doesn't consider the existence/non-existence of gods because that is not necessary in science - not because one position or the other is supported by or lacks supporting evidence. Science provides an alternative explanation of reality which does not depend on gods. In science, it is safe to ignore the question of the supernatural, because scientific reasoning and knowledge do not depend on it in the first place. I think it is this fact which most frightens believers about science. There is no explicit rejection of the notion of the supernatural, just the de facto recognition of its utter non-necessity. Of course one can postulate gods and all the rest, but so what? Why would anybody want to?

Robin said:

Capt. Kirk said: Science should always start from neutral ground, unless it has already secured evidence that legitimately establishes a different starting point. Science has no evidence that there is no God(s) whatsoever.

While I agree in principle, the presumption of the possibility of the existence of god or gods is not a neutral starting point. In other words, lacking evidence, science cannot presume something exists.

the captain says "Have you or any other atheists met your burden of substantiating the non-existence of every God?"

and reveals his true reason for being here: anyone who posts on PT in support of science must be an atheist. Sorry Jim, happy christian (former) scientist here.

Capt. Kirk said: Yours is not a universal default. In fact, when considering that most of mankind does believe that a God exists the majority default is that a God exists. It's not "universal" but it's vastly more "standard" than yours.

Believers in a God have no burden to go and prove ANY god until the folks claiming the non-existence of those gods meet their burden. It's that simple. Anyone claiming there is no God(s) is also acting on a presumption.

Are you able to discuss something without all the childish diatribe you seem so fond of using? From now on I will ignore any and all such comments from anyone and will only respond to reasonable comments or questions.

To everyone- On positing and defining a God: First of all no one can possibly know how every person who has ever lived or ever will live would define their God(s). For the sake of discussion let's say a person or persons say they believe there is a God and they name it Bob. They say Bob created the universe. Can they prove it?

An atheist hears about this and says that Bob can't or doesn't exist. Can the atheist prove it?

A scientist comes along and says Bob doesn't exist because there's no evidence that Bob, or any God, created the universe. Can the scientist prove it?

Another scientist comes along and says Bob could have created the universe, because there's no evidence one way or the other and that without testable, verifiable evidence to prove or disprove it the possibility must remain open. Isn't this scientist being truly neutral and scientific?

Can either the atheist or scientist, whether they're the same person or more that one person, prove an alternative origin of the universe?

“I believe there is much more of nature’s secrets that we could learn from our great Creator if we looked with an eye to see design . . . it was such an experimental and entrepreneurial spirit that led Wilbur and Orville Wright 107 years ago this month, to successfully copy the wing control of birds and so fly a warp wing controlled flying machine to fly along Kitty Hawk beach, in North Carolina . . . the distance covered was approximately the length of a Boeing 747!”

Capt. Kirk said: Science can only offer an explanation of whatever reality it has testable and verifiable evidence for. It cannot test and verify the existence or non-existence of every posited or yet to be posited God or Gods. Even if most posited Gods don't actually exist science cannot prove that all of those Gods do not exist or that no God exists. To be truly neutral and scientific the possibility must remain open, unless science invents a God non-existence detector. The relevance of what I'm saying goes to what people are discussing here about whether claims of the non-existence of a God are religious claims, and whether science makes or implies those claims. I would also point out that not everyone agrees on what is "supernatural". There likely are many people who think that the God(s) they believe exists is perfectly natural.

Capt. Kirk said: Science can only offer an explanation of whatever reality it has testable and verifiable evidence for. It cannot test and verify the existence or non-existence of every posited or yet to be posited God or Gods. Even if most posited Gods don't actually exist science cannot prove that all of those Gods do not exist or that no God exists. To be truly neutral and scientific the possibility must remain open, unless science invents a God non-existence detector. The relevance of what I'm saying goes to what people are discussing here about whether claims of the non-existence of a God are religious claims, and whether science makes or implies those claims. I would also point out that not everyone agrees on what is "supernatural". There likely are many people who think that the God(s) they believe exists is perfectly natural.

Spock, son of Sarek said: Come on, Jim, didn't you learn anything from V'Ger:

Capt. Kirk said: Science can only offer an explanation of whatever reality it has testable and verifiable evidence for. It cannot test and verify the existence or non-existence of every posited or yet to be posited God or Gods. Even if most posited Gods don't actually exist science cannot prove that all of those Gods do not exist or that no God exists. To be truly neutral and scientific the possibility must remain open, unless science invents a God non-existence detector. The relevance of what I'm saying goes to what people are discussing here about whether claims of the non-existence of a God are religious claims, and whether science makes or implies those claims. I would also point out that not everyone agrees on what is "supernatural". There likely are many people who think that the God(s) they believe exists is perfectly natural.

You are really dense, my friend. Science has no need to invoke anything with respect to religion since that is, of itself, quite extraneous. Nor should science be mixed up at all with religion, because time and time again, you get bad science and bad faith as a result. And as for your ridiculous assertion that the scientists and their followers who post here must be Atheists, that is not borne out by a substantial number here, including, for example, John Kwok, who is a Deist. You are truly grasping at straws, Jim, and NOT trying to use the Vulcan logic I taught you.

Capt. Kirk said:

Robin said:

mrg said:

Robin said: What area of science indicates such?

There are people who make a case that they can identify such. Not that I can give specifics, because I usually avoid arguing with them. But I would point to the common troll accusation that "evo science is just an attack on religion" as a interesting case in this matter. Not even the most outspoken atheist scientist will agree with that accusation, because it would imply that evo science doesn't stand on its merits in the evidence. The reality is that if one could magically snap fingers and make all trace of religion disappear, evo science would not look the slightest bit different. (Though admittedly a huge volume of quarreling would disappear as well.) The same can be said of any scientific theory.

Well, FL has certainly made related claims implying that science denies his god, but that's the point of my question - I want someone like FL or this person "Colin" to point to a specific instance where an actual scientific claim of disproof of their god has been made. I'm certainly not aware of any such cases. I know that folks like Coyne and Dawkins make proclamations all the time about the evils of religion and the virtues of atheism and such, but all those proclamations fall really under the domain of philosophy and opinion, not science. But even if we were to assume that such comes from science, they are still not claims that any god has been disproved. So I just don't see what "Colin's" point is. As to the rest of your post, mrg, of course I agree.

So you're saying then that any claim that there is no God(s) is not and cannot be scientific, and is strictly based on opinion and philosophy? Who are Colin and FL? I don't see anything from a Colin or FL in this discussion.

Worf, son of Mogh said:

Capt. Kirk said: To say there is no God or Gods is also unsupportable. There is no scientific test or detector that can verify in any way the existence or non-existence of a God. No such stipulation is necessary or required. If science says or implies that there is no God or Gods, that puts the burden of proof on science. Non-believers in a God or Gods, on this forum and elsewhere, expect believers, who say there is a God(s), to scientifically verify the existence of their God(s). They also expect believers to define and design a detector and other tests by which to scientifically verify the existence of their God. Is it unreasonable for believers to expect the same level of testability and verifiability from science, if science says or implies there is no God(s)? If so, why? Can science test and verify the non-existence of every God(s)? In other words, even if the non-existence of some God is easy to verify, does that mean science can weed out every God?

Science cannot address whether or not any sort of god exists because God is supposed to be completely outside the limitations of space and time. Otherwise, he would not have been able to create the universe in the first place. However, logic demands that as long as there is no POSITIVE evidence for anything outside the universe itself, we can operate in scientific studies as if there is no such thing. Science is silent on the issue of theism. Always has been, always will be. Many atheists who are scientists do try to use science to support their beliefs, but that's an expression of their PHILOSOPHY, not science itself. Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic

Capt. Kirk said: I would also point out that not everyone agrees on what is "supernatural". There likely are many people who think that the God(s) they believe exists is perfectly natural.

It might be productive to distinguish between "science" as a process and "science" as the accumulation of information/conclusions derived from said process. While the former has nothing (literally) to say about the existence of gods, the former most certainly does, if only in terms of ever-diminishing probabilities.

Capt. Kirk said: Not all people who believe that a God(s) exists think that that God or Gods are outside the universe or space and time. Many Gods have been posited that were never professed to be outside the limitations of space and time.

When I saw the original topic being discussed I thought it looked like a reasonable discussion between reasonable people. I also thought I would offer some interesting points to consider. I regret doing so now because it's obvious that few, if any, people here want to act like grownups and consider other viewpoints.

The bias here is overwhelming and makes reasonable discussion impossible, so I will leave you now to play in your little sandbox. Have a nice day.

Capt. Kirk said: Science does not know all the limitations of space and time. Some scientists believe there are things outside our universe or that there are several or many or infinite universes, or that space and time have or may have features we haven't begun to understand or verify. Many scientists and other people also believe there is no such thing as "outside" our universe, and there are probably a lot of God believers in that group.

Capt. Kirk said: When I saw the original topic being discussed I thought it looked like a reasonable discussion between reasonable people. I also thought I would offer some interesting points to consider. I regret doing so now because it's obvious that few, if any, people here want to act like grownups and consider other viewpoints. The bias here is overwhelming and makes reasonable discussion impossible, so I will leave you now to play in your little sandbox. Have a nice day.

Capt. Kirk said: What's extraordinary to you may not be extraordinary to everyone else. In the case of a God(s) that's certainly true. Most of mankind believes there is a God or Gods.

Anecdotes, muzzy arguments from authority, sincerity of belief, nor popularity of a given interpretation also don't count from atheists, whether they're scientists or not. Keep in mind that I'm only referring to the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods, not to Bible stories like Noah's Ark or Jesus walking on water or anything like that.

Capt. Kirk said: When I saw the original topic being discussed I thought it looked like a reasonable discussion between reasonable people. I also thought I would offer some interesting points to consider. I regret doing so now because it's obvious that few, if any, people here want to act like grownups and consider other viewpoints. The bias here is overwhelming and makes reasonable discussion impossible, so I will leave you now to play in your little sandbox. Have a nice day.

Capt. Kirk said: When I saw the original topic being discussed I thought it looked like a reasonable discussion between reasonable people. I also thought I would offer some interesting points to consider. I regret doing so now because it's obvious that few, if any, people here want to act like grownups and consider other viewpoints. The bias here is overwhelming and makes reasonable discussion impossible, so I will leave you now to play in your little sandbox. Have a nice day.

Dale Husband said: [snip] because you cannot prove a negative. You can only prove an opposing positive claim.

SOME negatives (i.e. universal ones: no unicorns exist) cannot be proved. Specific negatives can and (and often must) be disproved.

Shebardigan said: SOME negatives (i.e. universal ones: no unicorns exist) cannot be proved.

TomS said: No provable universal negatives exist. Is that one of those universal negatives that cannot be proved?

Shebardigan said:

Dale Husband said: [snip] because you cannot prove a negative. You can only prove an opposing positive claim.

I am really becoming tired of this. YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE (if it's the right kind of negative). Demonstrandum est: "There are no goats in my bedroom" Imprimis: Every known goat is visible. Secundus: No goat is visible in my bedroom. Ergo: There is no goat in my bedroom. QED. SOME negatives (i.e. universal ones: no unicorns exist) cannot be proved. Specific negatives can and (and often must) be disproved.

Shebardigan said:

TomS said: No provable universal negatives exist. Is that one of those universal negatives that cannot be proved?

Further deponent sayeth not.

Dale Husband said: I've heard that argument before. The problem with it is that it still contains a positive element (the bedroom), thus the claim can be proven by looking into the bedroom and nowhere else. But what if there were also no bedrooms? What if the claim was merely, "There are no goats?"

Dornier Pfeil said: mathematical ignorance speaking out here but isn't that a variant of Godel incompleteness, a self-referential statement is inherently unprovable within the system that made the statement or some such. it has been several years since i read the argument i am trying to remember.

Dornier Pfeil said: mathematical ignorance speaking out here but isn't that a variant of Godel incompleteness, a self-referential statement is inherently unprovable within the system that made the statement or some such. it has been several years since i read the argument i am trying to remember.

Mike Elzinga said: The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Or more compactly; “This statement is false.” Or one that we have all seen before; "This page has been deliberately left blank."

Shebardigan said:

Mike Elzinga said: The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Or more compactly; “This statement is false.” Or one that we have all seen before; "This page has been deliberately left blank."

And thus is born the foundation of modern technic society: the oscillator.

Shebardigan said:

Mike Elzinga said: The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Or more compactly; “This statement is false.” Or one that we have all seen before; "This page has been deliberately left blank."

And thus is born the foundation of modern technic society: the oscillator.

The really interesting thing about the oscillator is the fact that time delay is what makes it work. If there were no time delay, it would operate at an infinite frequency; and if there were an infinite time delay, it would work a zero frequency.

Mike Elzinga said: Then there is the “Barber of Seville;” i.e., the guy in the village who shaves everyone who doesn’t shave himself. Does the barber shave himself?

Shebardigan said:

The really interesting thing about the oscillator is the fact that time delay is what makes it work. If there were no time delay, it would operate at an infinite frequency; and if there were an infinite time delay, it would work a zero frequency.

I made that comment in specific remembrance of a piece of equipment that I maintined way back in the 70s. On one circuit board (this in the era of TTL random-logic supremacy) there was a long series of 7404 NOR gates connected in series with the output of the final gate looping back to the input of the first gate. This was the "System Clock" device. I was suitably impressed.

Mike Elzinga said: Ah yes; the 7404. I know it well; and I knew to what you were referring. As to the "Barber of Seville" and the "Spanish Barber", who can forget the Bugs Bunny version of the opera? And yeah, I believe the default assumption was that the barber was male. I think that historically barbers were male.

Shebardigan said: Considering the epoch (of Farinelli, e.g.), upon reflection, I expand the default assumption to "the Barber is an intact, post-pubertal male who chooses not to sport full facial hair". But then, all of these logickall phantasies have their amusing constraints.

Mike Elzinga said: A eunuch perhaps?

Perhaps this Ruse guy is bumping into obvious logic.
if the state can't teach God or genesis in regards to conclusions about origins because its a illegal religious stance then how can the state teaching God or Genesis is not true by 1) banning it in class where truth of origins is taught and 2) teaching opposite ideas to God/Genesis NOT also be a state opinion on religion???
slow but getting closer. lOgic can overcome prejudice.

Robert Byers said: Perhaps this Ruse guy is bumping into obvious logic. if the state can't teach God or genesis in regards to conclusions about origins because its a illegal religious stance then how can the state teaching God or Genesis is not true by 1) banning it in class where truth of origins is taught and 2) teaching opposite ideas to God/Genesis NOT also be a state opinion on religion??? slow but getting closer. lOgic can overcome prejudice.

Robert Byers said: Perhaps this Ruse guy is bumping into obvious logic. if the state can't teach God or genesis in regards to conclusions about origins because its a illegal religious stance then how can the state teaching God or Genesis is not true by 1) banning it in class where truth of origins is taught and 2) teaching opposite ideas to God/Genesis NOT also be a state opinion on religion??? slow but getting closer. lOgic can overcome prejudice.

I'm way late to this subject, but it is one that creationists bring up a lot lately.

If religions make testable factual claims that are wrong and false, it is not science that falsifies them.

It is reality, objective reality, the real world, whatever you call it. Science is just the messenger.

Just because a claim is labeled "religious" doesn't make it correct. A few theists still claim the earth is flat because it says so in an old holy book somewhere.

Robert Byers said: lOgic can overcome prejudice.

If it was scientifically proven that there was one and only one god, "god exists" would no longer be a religious statement, even though it also says that the god contrived to be undetectable by science does not exist.

Shebardigan said:

Dale Husband said: [snip] because you cannot prove a negative. You can only prove an opposing positive claim.

I am really becoming tired of this. YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE (if it's the right kind of negative). Demonstrandum est: "There are no goats in my bedroom" Imprimis: Every known goat is visible. Secundus: No goat is visible in my bedroom. Ergo: There is no goat in my bedroom. QED. SOME negatives (i.e. universal ones: no unicorns exist) cannot be proved. Specific negatives can and (and often must) be disproved.

Stuart Weinstein said: The invisible goat next to your nigth stand disagrees. Have Captn Kirk point him/her out to you.

Shebardigan said: ... it's the "Spanish Barber". The question left unsaid is: Is the Barber Male?

RBH said: I expand Mark's analysis a little. Ruse's argument is captured in these two quotations from the Chronicle article:

Suppose we agree to the conflict thesis throughout, and that if you accept modern science then religion—pretty much all religion, certainly pretty much all religion that Americans want to accept—is false. Is it then constitutional to teach science?

and

If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

Given his strong assumption that last is a superficially valid question. Ruse's article, however, is not really about answering that question; it's about the desirability (in his mind, at least) of maintaining an accommodationist stance with respect to the relationship between science and (American Protestant Christian) religion. But his argument requires the further unstated assumption that science cannot and could not be taught agnostically, independent of its (putative, assumptive) metaphysical implications, but of course it can be now and still could be under Ruse's strong assumption. That is all that's required to meet the Constitutional test, much as a comparative religion class must be taught agnostically in public schools would meet that test. Ruse's argument is a weak reed.

SocraticGadfly said: At the same time, Perakh is wrong, wrong, wrong on philosophy of science. If not for a great philosopher of science like Buller, Pop Ev Psych bullshit would get a free ride on claiming to be real science. (In fairness to his unfairness, his POV on philosophy of science is not based on Ruse, he says.)

I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn't exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school.

IBelieveInGod said: Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists.

IClaimToBelieveInGod said: I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn't exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school.

You don’t like belief in God, and think it is not warranted by science? Well that’s great. I agree. But I would never want to see that taught in a science class. It isn’t science.

this is now, and always has been, an unsupportable argument.

science, by definition, doesn't ever attempt to prove anything.

ergo, in it's attempt to disprove, what is the result?

we adopt agreement that certain hypotheses are, repeatedly:

-explanatory
-predictive
-unrejected

and eventually come to accept them as essentially fact.

this is the case whether you are arguing about gravity, thermodynamics, or evolution.

so, with that undeniable description of how science actually works, it is no more "religious" of science to say that, based on all available current and historical evidence, and all tests so far done that have not been rejected, that there is no Santa Claus, there are no leprechauns, and there is no deity that exists as described by the various sects of Abrahamic religions.

so, no, it's NOT religious to say that, just as with the tired old cliche, not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby.

Science isn't about relativism, it's about pragamtism.

this is something many PHILOSOPHERS seem to fail to get in THEIR flailing attempts to describe science themselves.

*eyes Wilkins*

However, somewhere about the middle of the 20th century, those studying philosophy began loosing touch with science and were beginning to make pronouncements that no scientist could recognize or identify with.

QFT

Benny Hinn is a fraud. Prayer to divine beings doesn't produce supernatural activity, it produces nothing more than the natural psychological results common to any placebo effect.

Claims about supernatural events are not necessarily untestable (i.e., outside of empirical implications which can be objectively examined and evaluated in terms of empirical evidence). A lot of the argumentation made in previous comments is incorrect for lack of dealing with the direct empirical implications of beliefs and claims about the supernatural.

IBelieveInGod said: I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn't exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school.

Forgive me mrg. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. I couldn't help myself.

DNFTT.

John Vanko said: Forgive me mrg. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. I couldn't help myself. DNFTT.

I think that Perakh is wrong about the philosophy of science as well, and I don't see why he thinks he needs to pick on it. Here is Einstein's view...........

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

---Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem].

If more information is wanted see the entry on Einstein's Philosophy of Science at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is silly for people like Perakh to make these negative comments when they are not very well informed.

That's a lot of comments.

Here's how I see it. Factually, yes, the question of God is one science can't address, and one which science has no interest in addressing. But that's what science is, not how science is perceived. To most people, science is a magic 8-ball: ask it a question about how the world works, shake it, and see what answer floats up; it doesn't matter how the answer came about. And when this magic 8-ball comes into conflict with the magic 8-ball of religion, which actually provides emotional comfort, people get a bit defensive of their religion 8-ball.

Mark Perakh: Science does not assert or imply that “God does not exist.” Science simply is not interested in such a notion. One may assert that science does not support the notion that God exists. Right. Equally, science does not support the opposite notion. The question of whether, beyond the “natural” universe which can be studied by scientific means exists something “supernatural” is neither asked nor answered by science.

The alleged neutrality seen in the Perakh quote, contrasted against the definitive exclusion seen in the Talk Reason quote, contradict.

Factually, yes, the question of God is one science can’t address,

I see this said so often here, but it is not quite accurate.

If a consistent definition of a god can be made, and that definition includes such a god interacting with the universe in an observable manner, then science most certainly can weigh in on the issue.

this is, of course, why you really can NEVER pin the religious down on exactly what their definition of any specific deity IS. Once you note any part of their definition as being testable, they immediately move the goalposts to an untestable definition.

"God is that which makes lightning flash and thunder boom!"

well, might have worked a few hundred years ago as a definition, now? not so much.

Hell, Ken Miller has had to push the definition of his own god so far it now lies in the realm of interacting in quantum fields.

so, technically, it really depends on what the definition of "God" is as to whether or not science has something to weigh in on.

The null hypothesis, and the default position of course, to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, is that any particular definition DOES NOT EXIST.

One can then construct a positive definition, and either include testable items that one can then construct a positive hypothesis around, or one can work the definition such that constructing a testable hypothesis is simply not possible.

example:

Leprechauns.

H0: Leprechauns do not exist.

my first definition of Leprechaun:

-Is a humanoid figure, typically appearing as a very small (no bigger than a toddler), old man, usually wearing a hat
-Leprechauns mostly spend their time making shoes
-They store all their money as gold in a hidden (or invisible) pot
-These pots are always at the end of rainbows
-If captured, they can grant 3 wishes to the captor in exchange for their release.

Well, I can envision any number of testable hypotheses surrounding many parts of this definition, since a lot of it contains reference to observable phenomena, and the last implies Leprechauns themselves are physical, observable, beings that can be captured and observed.

so, in that case, I think science would indeed have much to say on the existence of Leprechauns.

If, OTOH, I defined Leprechauns this way:

-Shapeshifters; sometimes taking the form of a small old man, but can take any form, or be invisible, at will
-They can make shoes, but they don't have to; some do, some don't, and at any given time or place, you could find all of them making shoes, or none.
-Because of their transitory nature, they cannot be captured, though at certain times and places, one can leave notes to ask for wishes to be granted, which sometimes are.

OK, now the definition has been changed significantly.

It has effectively removed it from the realm of relative testability.

So, as you can see, it really depends on how one defines God as to whether or not science can weigh in on it.

Flint said:

The alleged neutrality seen in the Perakh quote, contrasted against the definitive exclusion seen in the Talk Reason quote, contradict.

Perakh is saying that, while the supernatural cannot be addressed by science one way or the other, BULLSHIT in fact CAN be examined by science, and has been, and has been determined to be without merit, and he doesn't wish to provide a forum for bullshit. Nothing contradictory at all.

Oh dear, Ray's off his meds and trolling the internet again.