Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Quote from Thunderdog:

To answer the question that is the title of this thread, I think that, apart from those things that science has uncovered that had previously been shrouded in religious mysticism, science and religious faith are fairly independent of one another. Science is the quest for knowledge, pure and simple. Faith, as I see it, is a quest for solace and comfort. Allow me to explain. If I felt that I needed more friends in my life to feel more happy and "complete," then I would look to fill that gap by making more friends. And if I felt that a single mortal life, or life's random (and not so random) injustices from time to time left me wanting, then I might look to fill that gap with faith of something more, something bigger. In that respect, science and religious faith have nothing to do with one another.

Some may disagree, but that is my honest opinion.
More...

Faith might provide solace and comfort, but that does not make it real.

It is difficult to exaggerate the capacity of people to delude themselves.

To some, faith means praying to a personal God who cares, listens, and acts within the world.

The evidence for a personal God who answers prayers by acting within the world would be demonstrable.

If science does not make God obsolete, there should be evidence that God suspends the laws that govern the universe by, for instance, making the dead come back to life, and performing other "miracles."

Yet there is no evidence, so far, that such a personal God exists.

A person might have faith that God will heal his severed leg by helping him grow a new one, but all the faith in the world will do no good.

The delusion, though, might provide comfort.

In this heartless, ruthless world, a little comfort, even if it comes from delusion, actually might do some good. Placebos sometimes do "work".
 
"The evidence for a personal God who answers prayers by acting within the world would be demonstrable."

Millions throughout history have reported direct evidence that they prayed to their God and that God demonstrated that God heard those prayers by making their requests come to fruition.

Who is there to prove they are wrong?

That God perhaps didn't answer your own prayers might just mean it wasn't God's fault, but your own by asking with less than a pure heart and full faith...

Quote from smilingsynic:

Faith might provide solace and comfort, but that does not make it real.

It is difficult to exaggerate the capacity of people to delude themselves.

To some, faith means praying to a personal God who cares, listens, and acts within the world.

The evidence for a personal God who answers prayers by acting within the world would be demonstrable.

If science does not make God obsolete, there should be evidence that God suspends the laws that govern the universe by, for instance, making the dead come back to life, and performing other "miracles."

Yet there is no evidence, so far, that such a personal God exists.

A person might have faith that God will heal his severed leg by helping him grow a new one, but all the faith in the world will do no good.

The delusion, though, might provide comfort.

In this heartless, ruthless world, a little comfort, even if it comes from delusion, actually might do some good. Placebos sometimes do "work".
More...
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

Faith might provide solace and comfort, but that does not make it real.

It is difficult to exaggerate the capacity of people to delude themselves.

...The delusion, though, might provide comfort.

In this heartless, ruthless world, a little comfort, even if it comes from delusion, actually might do some good. Placebos sometimes do "work".
More...
That is precisely my view.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Millions throughout history have reported direct evidence that they prayed to their God and that God demonstrated that God heard those prayers by making their requests come to fruition.

Who is there to prove they are wrong?

That God perhaps didn't answer your own prayers might just mean it wasn't God's fault, but your own by asking with less than a pure heart and full faith...
More...
Quote from vhehn:

Templeton has spent his whole life and a lot of money trying to find some scientific proof that there is a god. so far no luck.in fact just the opposite:
The Templeton Foundation, a christian organization, in 2006, set out to prove that prayer works, with a massive study that ended up costing over 2.4 million dollars.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/vie...
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/prayer.html#S...

1,802 patients at 6 different hospitals were organized into the study. They'd all received heart bypass surgery so that there would be as much similarity as possible.

Patients were organized into three groups:
1) Patients who weren't prayed for and were told they might or might not be, but were.
2) Patients who were prayed for, and were told they might or might not be, but weren't.
3) Patients who were prayed for, and knew it.

It was a double-blind study, as real science demands. The patients didn't know who the prayers were, or where they were, or in most cases even that they were being prayed for.

On the other side were 3 churches in 3 different states that didn't know each other. They were given the first name and last initial and the condition of the patient they were to pray for.

Prayer started the night before surgery, and continued for 14 days thereafter. As an extra control, congregation members were given the instruction to include the phrase "a successful surgery with no complications" in their prayers.

Here are the results:
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS00028703...

Not only did the prayer have NO POSITIVE EFFECT AT ALL, it actually had a negative effect on the patients who knew for certain they were being prayed for. The conclusion of the researchers was a psychosomatic effect due to 'performance anxiety'. They made themselves sicker from the pressure of the experiment.
More...
I think vhehn's post says it all. However, to suggest that God didn't answer someone's prayers because that person was "asking with less than a pure heart and full faith" is adding insult to injury. Not only might such a misguided (in my mind) person have a serious illness which he prays to God to cure, but now he must contend with an "impure heart" as well as with a terminal illness. That's just flat out cruel, Z. Since there is no evidence that terminally ill religious people are cured or go into remission any more than those who are not religious, you are suggesting that those people who are religious have only themselves to blame. Insult to injury.
 
You think God didn't know there was a "scientific" test going on?

You really don't seem to understand what faith is really all about.

No, it is not like the faith of a child in Santa Claus...

Quote from Thunderdog:
Templeton has spent his whole life and a lot of money trying to find some scientific proof that there is a god. so far no luck.in fact just the opposite:
The Templeton Foundation, a christian organization, in 2006, set out to prove that prayer works, with a massive study that ended up costing over 2.4 million dollars.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/vie...
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/prayer.html#S...

1,802 patients at 6 different hospitals were organized into the study. They'd all received heart bypass surgery so that there would be as much similarity as possible.

Patients were organized into three groups:
1) Patients who weren't prayed for and were told they might or might not be, but were.
2) Patients who were prayed for, and were told they might or might not be, but weren't.
3) Patients who were prayed for, and knew it.

It was a double-blind study, as real science demands. The patients didn't know who the prayers were, or where they were, or in most cases even that they were being prayed for.

On the other side were 3 churches in 3 different states that didn't know each other. They were given the first name and last initial and the condition of the patient they were to pray for.

Prayer started the night before surgery, and continued for 14 days thereafter. As an extra control, congregation members were given the instruction to include the phrase "a successful surgery with no complications" in their prayers.

Here are the results:
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS00028703...

Not only did the prayer have NO POSITIVE EFFECT AT ALL, it actually had a negative effect on the patients who knew for certain they were being prayed for. The conclusion of the researchers was a psychosomatic effect due to 'performance anxiety'. They made themselves sicker from the pressure of the experiment.
More...
 
Quote from smilingsynic:

Does anyone care to (try to) refute this?

Until this is refuted, the answer to the original question proposed in this thread is "yes".
More...

Yes.

Theorem 1: In true science, the one making the supposition bears the responsibility

Theorem 2: Anyone making such a supposition and expecting others take it at face value is no science.

How about this:

SmilingSync is a cantaloupe.

Does anyone care to (try to) refute this?

Until this is refuted, the answer to the original question proposed in this thread is "yes".

 
Quote from maxpi:

Genetics proved evolution? Humans supposedly came from chimpanzees but chimps have 2 MORE chromosomes than humans? And the genome projects have shown that humans share more DNA with dogs than chimps? We did not come from dogs buddy..... or chimps...

More...

Actually, this is one of the best proofs for evolution. As it turns out, chimps have two more chromosomes because two of ours are fused together. At the end of each chromosome, there is material that basically says, "I'm the end of a chromosome". We have, right in the middle of two of ours, the end markers, unmistakeable evidence that at some point these chromosomes came from two chromosomes that fused together.

Frances Collins, a devout Christian, goes into all this. Vhehn mentioned his name I believe...
 
Quote from vhehn:

sure. lets dismiss einstein and believe what some primitive sheep herders wrote down instead.
More...

I didn't know that Aristotle and Newton were primitive sheep herders, but maybe you know better.

Einstein was a physicist. This was his area of expertise. His opinions as to religion and metaphysics are non-authoritative.

Any scientist that claims to be an expert on areas that are not in his field of domain by virtue of his expertise in his area of study is a charlatan.

Your so called primitives were operating at a much higher level than anyone alive now.

It is a well established fact that the great among the ancients were much more in concert with reality than we are even though we possess more overall knowledge.

For example, every serious student of the martial arts knows that the ancient masters possessed vastly more power than the present masters due to their superior ability at meditation.
 
Quote from TraderZones:

Yes.

Theorem 1: In true science, the one making the supposition bears the responsibility

Theorem 2: Anyone making such a supposition and expecting others take it at face value is no science.

How about this:

SmilingSync is a cantaloupe.

Does anyone care to (try to) refute this?

Until this is refuted, the answer to the original question proposed in this thread is "yes".
More...

Clueless, rcanfiel, you are going on ignore, so please do not bother responding, as I will not be able to read it.

That said, it is rather easy to refute your notion that I am not a cantaloupe.

No cantaloupes can write.
I write;
Therefore, I am not a cantaloupe.

An EAE-2 syllogism. Not that it matters, since logic is not your strength.

If you find a cantaloupe that does, please PM me.

Also, if you find irrefutable evidence of a miracle--amputees growing their legs back, Lou Gehrig coming back from the dead, etc--you can PM me that as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top