Do we need science to back up religion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

IMO it cheapens both religion and science to try to "prove" the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran with a science. If religion is based upon faith, then why does it need to be proven by modern science? Is faith so weak that it requires constant proving?

---

Religion is based on faith- but faith doesn't mean believing something that is wrong or ludicrous. Also, YECs don't try to "prove" the bible- they simply try to interpret evidence under a biblical model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tertulian:
Faith IS irrational! It IS the belief in something wrong and ludicrous! You can't see a god. You can't prove he/she/it exists. And yet millions/billions of people believe in a supernatural being. This belief is irrational. Why does one believe in something they can't see or prove, even to themselves? A book? They need science in order to validate their positions. Otherwise, it is just "dust in the wind".
A biblical model cannot stand on its own when confronted with all kinds of scientific evidence. The evidence is 'mutated' to fit these kinds of models.
The answer to the TOPIC "Do we need science to back-up religion", is a resounding "YES!!". It needs all the help it can get.

​

---

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley0.htmlRead the debate. I'm not saying that Craig whoops the competition completely- but contrary to your rather pessimistic assertions of the lack of any intellectual reasons to believe in God- there is a good basis (intellectually) for being a theist. Also, YEC is not neccesary for religion.

"Both sides, Craig and Tooley, were severely lacking in content."I'm glad you agree with me that Tooley was lacking in content. The only argument he really used was the "argument from harm.""But any of those proof, as Tooley mentioned, can be used for the existence of any supernatural creator."So? I said that there was a good intellectual basis for being a theist."These 'proofs' are weak at best. Tooley pointed out some errors in his arguments but his debating skill are lacking (mine aren't any better). I didn't learn anything from that garbage."Why exactly are these "proofs" weak at best?"I was laughing when Craig gave his 'proofs' or 'plausibility' of the existence of a god."What exactly about Craig's 'proofs' or 'plausibility' did you find so entertaining?"Atheism is not a world view. Atheism cannot be true or untrue. Atheism is the denial of theism, that's it, that's all, and nothing more."What type of semantic gymnastics are you performing? Atheism (the denial of theism) is either correct or incorrect! You are either right that there is no God or you are wrong that there is no God! I don't really understand where you are coming from here."It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa."Is it also the atheist who laughs at or disregards the arguments of a theist, as you have done here, without giving any reasons for your contentions?"If there wasn't any modern science, there wouldn't be any serious objections to religion (they'd get burned at the stake). Now that scientists have removed the yoke of religion they are free to follow evidence instead of irrational faith."Most evolutionists or atheists claim that science and religion are seperate areas- and I'm suprised that you are not following suit."What good 'intelectual' reasons? Those that Craig gave?"Sure. You haven't given any reasons for your complete rejection of Craig's intellectual reasons for being a theist."Those are just poorly understood ideas."You haven't offered any reasons for your contentions. Also, I think you would do yourself good to look in the mirror before making reckless accusations of "poorly understood ideas". For example:YOU SAID:"It IS the belief in something wrong and ludicrous! You can't see a god. You can't prove he/she/it exists."Had a creationist made a similar comment about evolution, the evos would be on your case about your poor use of the term "prove". Nothing can be "proven", so your requirement that God/God's be proven is a totally unfair and impossible request.Secondly, the fact that one cannot "see" God/God's is hardly a good intellectual reason for rejection. Can you "see" electrons? Can you "see" gamma rays? Whoops, I suppose belief in electrons and gamma rays is wrong and ludicrous.Had a creationist made a similar comment with such logical errors, that person would have been thouroughly roasted for making an unscientific and irrational response. I suppose it's ok to make logical errors when you're bashing God....."Why does one believe in something they can't see or prove, even to themselves?"That's why I don't believe in electrons or Abraham Lincoln.IN CONCLUSION: You should not make careless accusations of "poorly understood ideas" without giving any reasons for your contentions, particularly when you yourself have commited logical errors and "poorly understood ideas".

​

[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 06-18-2002]

Tertulian, I sincerely hope that you will look into the ideas and concepts presented by Craig. Hopefully, you will be able to overcome your atheistic bias in order to fairly evaluate both positions. Even if you don't become a theist yourself, perhaps you can learn to respect those who do hold to the theist position.

"OK. I concede. I'm not a debater nor am I a logician."Thank you. I must admit that I am suprised that you are so mature about this- many I think would ramble incoherently. However, I do find it a bit ironic that the evos/atheists were not very quick to correct you on this matter. I've seen many a newbie creationist roasted over these types of things. Again though, thank you for admitting your mistake."btw-You can't 'believe' in electron and gamma radiation. Their 'existence' is based on evidence. Check-out any book on chemistry or physics."Precisely my point. In the same way that the existence of God can be based on evidence."The last time I checked there was evidence for electrons and I even saw the evidence. My notebook entitled "My rational evidence for God" is surprisingly empty (except for the doodles)."Perhaps you have writers' block? Seriously though, what exactly about Craig's evidences did you find unconvincing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Not scientific evidence, Cobra.

​

Philosophical evidence, perhaps, but nothing that will stand up to science.

---

You're right- they are a bit different. Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think the point remains the same.

Reason #1 "God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities"Didn't understand this one myself either."Reason #2--"God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists rather than nothing"The 'God did it' proof again."Don't know what you mean here. Craig says that God provides the BEST explanation, if you disagree with his assesment, you need to mention why that is."Reason #3--"God provides the best explanation for the complex order in the universe"Even I know that's not how you calculate probabilities. as Tooley pointed out in his rebuttal."I thought a different guy- not Craig or Tooley- gave the statistic."Reason #4--"God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world"I don't know how to logically deconstruct this argument. I've seen it done though.
The only thing I know is that I've been an atheist for 3 years and I've yet to kill, rape or torture anyone."Craig did not say that atheists kill and rape people. He pointed out that God is the best explanation for why YOU KNOW it is wrong to commit these horrid acts."Reason #5--"God provides the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus."This argument is built on the premise that the Bible is the actual word of God. That is a problem for me."Nope. It relies on the bible being a historical text- which I believe is something even atheists admit to. Tooley didn't really counter this argument anywhere in the debate."Reason #6--"God can be immediately known and experienced"That is a hard sell to atheists."Agreed. This isn't a very good one."I'm not here to make enemies. I'm here to learn."Good. I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my last post. One problem with internet debates is that you are not able to convey tone of voice. Often it seems like the debate opponent is very mad. However, I didn't mean to be harsh if that's how it came off."I'll try to keep my discussion on a more pleasant tone, less argumentative and more inquisitive."Sounds good."Now I have a sincere question for you snake: How is my disbelief in a god due to the lack of physical evidence constitute irrationality?
This is a serious question...I really don't know."I really don't recall making the claim that you were irrational for being an atheist. However, your requirement that God be seen in order for rational people to believe in Him IS irrational. I don't think at all that atheists are irrational- in fact that claim is usually directed towards the theist."P.S. What's a 'strawman argument'?"Hehe. I'm glad you asked me. When I first came here I never wanted to ask what a strawman argument was, and I didn't figure out for quite a while.A "strawman argument" is created when an individual creates a false or misleading caricature of an opponents view in order to knock down the opponents view. For example, when you claimed that "Faith is not a good method of collecting knowledge", it was basically a strawman because I never claimed that faith WAS a method of collecting knowledge. Strawman arguments can be avoided if you have firm knowledge of the different views held by opposing camps. However, everyone may make a strawman argument every now and then- so don't really worry about it too much.

"So, if God decided it was good and moral behavior to murder and pilliage at will, would it then be considered perfectly OK to murder and pilliage?"I suppose so."Really? How can I tell the difference between God making his existence known to me and my brain imagining that God is making his existence known to me?"You can't. Number 6 isn't a very good one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tertulian:
You can't really follow something that blindly!?!

---

Oh yes I can! Let me explain myself here.You understand that it is morally incorrect to murder. In my view, this is because God has placed within us the knowledge of a basic moral code. However, if we lived in a different universe- for example one in which God did not think it was immoral to murder- humans would not have that in their moral code. Thus, it would be perfectly fine for us to murder and we would not think anything of it.The only reason that you think I am following blindly is because of the moral code that you have inside of you. You can't possibly imagine it being morally correct to murder someone- because of your moral code that God has given you. However, if the moral code was different, so would your opinion of what is right and wrong. For example, in this alternate universe it may be morally incorrect to give somebody a gift. In this universe, shrafinator might ask me, "What if God were to say that giving people gifts is OK?", in which case I would have to give the same explanation.Hopefully what I just said is not as confusing as I think it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tertulian:
My real problem with your answer is that we live in this universe not some alternate one. Would it be possible for your god's moral code to change in this universe.

---

God's moral code is never-changing, in my opinion. Although I may develop new opinions on what is right and wrong, God still knows what is right and wrong, and I do deep down as well. Also, I think the moral code we have inside of us is rather basic. I think humans have to think for themselves about many issues, but I think everyone knows obvious moral wrongs, such as murder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
However, it is also not at all demonstrable that God is the source of morals. It is much more likely that cultures create their own moral codes.

​

There are some univeral morals, but these can be explained through evolutionary means, as explained in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

​

---

Obviously there is a bit of difference of opinion here- and I suppose it is mostly a matter of perspective. If you are an atheist, obviously the existance of universal morals is not going to convince you that God exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Apples and oranges.

​

---

Well my main point is that it is not logically valid to DEMAND sight of God in order to believe He exists. However, it is a subject for debate as to whether or not God's existance can be based on evidence (and what type of evidence for that matter) so I see why you are pointing this out.