Does science make belief in God obsolete?

[BernardRichards]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

If it were true that science would make belief in God obsolete, then it would necessarily follow that elimination of science, or non existence of science would make belief in God valid.

That of course is a logical fallacy, science has not invalidated belief in God nor made belief in God obsolete, but then the atheists aren't ever really very interested in logical consistency in defending their atheism and their own belief systems.

Science has become the religion of the atheists, the dogma of the atheists, and scientists have become for the atheists the apostles of science...consequently the argument of using science to make belief in God obsolete is presented in scientific terms...thus making for a completely circular argument.

Very good reply ZZZzzzzzzz!

I like a man that makes use of logic in polemics -- not many do at least on Internet debate forums with or without moderators.

A Guide to Logical Fallacies
http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43794

Logical Fallacies
The Light of Reason is Here
Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/

 

[BernardRichards]

Quote from Gringinho:

The short answer to the topic is in my opinion that science should make all religion obsolete. However, as we all know is very obvious - learning religion is A LOT easier than learning science.

Learning religion in comparison to science is a breeze. I agree with you 100% Gringinho. There is no question that the world is flooded with scholars on religion that know Biblical Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, and are fully versed in Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.

Traditionally in older times, old women would try to hold their status in a family by talking about tales of ghosts, supernatural wonders and other scary stuff and try to keep the respect from children and young ones.

You call this religion Gringinho??

In the frame of European religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a Life stance.

This is not a bad definition of religion as given by Jack Goody although I would take exception to certain parts of it.


When we go beyond religion we start understanding philosophy - and we are onto science again.

You need to define your terms Gringinho. In the deist mind everything that exists comes from the same source. There is no split between the sacred and the profane. Consequently, sacred studies, philosophy, mathematics, logic, science, history, etc., while being different areas of study are all parts of the same pie.

Religion is stupid and desperately lost people's way to "find a system in the madness".

I see -- that is why ideological systems like Nazism, Fascism, and Communism that are devoid of religion and really atheistic in nature worked out so well for humanity.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

If it were true that science would make belief in God obsolete, then it would necessarily follow that elimination of science, or non existence of science would make belief in God valid.

That of course is a logical fallacy, science has not invalidated belief in God nor made belief in God obsolete, but then the atheists aren't ever really very interested in logical consistency in defending their atheism and their own belief systems.

Science has become the religion of the atheists, the dogma of the atheists, and scientists have become for the atheists the apostles of science...consequently the argument of using science to make belief in God obsolete is presented in scientific terms...thus making for a completely circular argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You realize that you are saying that my statement is " P hence Q " , and therefore you say that necessarily follows " not P hence not Q " ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

I took model theory at university and do like logics a lot - I'm a computer programmer at heart after all. Oh, and just so that you have something more to ponder on - there are more logics than simple two-valued logic. Look into modal logics, maybe paraconsistent logic or dialethism - because two-valued logic is something that does not model perfectly our world. Religion is too black-and-white, and makes people loose touch with reality. I feel genuinely sorry for you ...


BernardRichards, poor ZZZzzzzzzz just committed the grave logical fallacy, not I. It's so laughable that I can't stop smirking at you two guys ...

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from BernardRichards:

Learning religion in comparison to science is a breeze. I agree with you 100% Gringinho. There is no question that the world is flooded with scholars on religion that know Biblical Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, and are fully versed in Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.

I see -- that is why ideological systems like Nazism, Fascism, and Communism that are devoid of religion and really atheistic in nature worked out so well for humanity. [/B]

Neither knowledge of the science of linguistics nor knowledge of ancient history of languages are implied by knowledge of religion. You might try to redefine the concept of religion to include every knowledge in the universe though ... hehe. Like you said - in the deist mind - everything comes from the "religious source".


Me having the opinion that religion is stupid and sometimes desperate people's way to order in their chaos does in no way imply that harsh political systems are good for us.

Some might even call the state of Israel fascist - it does definitely beg the question with the current affairs over there and taking into consideration the basic definition of fascism. As you can probably read - fascism can include religious motives. Oh, and by the way - some of the nazis were really intrigued by the occult, while others have blamed jews for killing Jesus and had some illogical hate for them.

Reading the bible is of course a lot easier than reading the study material required to get a complete view of how the sciences can explain the world we live in.

To date there is no philosophy that can unify everything we see and know in the universe - as well as inner thoughts, fantasies etc. There are some attempts to "unify everything" coming out of String theory and the Anthropic principle. I'm not sure they'll succeed, though. But we are getting somewhere - with rapidly progressing science, not thousands of year old religion.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The question in the title of the thread is not "Does science make religion obsolete."

The central issues is belief if God, and belief in God does exist without the practice of religion.

Your focus is on organized religion.

Lots of scientists hold a belief in God, many doing so without the practice of any religion.

Try to stay with the central idea of the topic, i.e. belief in God, for which religion is not a requirement.

Quote from Gringinho:

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You realize that you are saying that my statement is " P hence Q " , and therefore you say that necessarily follows " not P hence not Q " ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

I took model theory at university and do like logics a lot - I'm a computer programmer at heart after all. Oh, and just so that you have something more to ponder on - there are more logics than simple two-valued logic. Look into modal logics, maybe paraconsistent logic or dialethism - because two-valued logic is something that does not model perfectly our world. Religion is too black-and-white, and makes people loose touch with reality. I feel genuinely sorry for you ...


BernardRichards, poor ZZZzzzzzzz just committed the grave logical fallacy, not I. It's so laughable that I can't stop smirking at you two guys ...

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The question in the title of the thread is not "Does science make religion obsolete."

The central issues is belief if God, and belief in God does exist without the practice of religion.

Your focus is on organized religion.

Lots of scientists hold a belief in God, many doing so without the practice of any religion.

Try to stay with the central idea of the topic, i.e. belief in God, for which religion is not a requirement.

Hehe, I gave my short answer in my first post on this topic and said the short answer is that "science SHOULD make religion obsolete". I also mentioned that learning religion (as in believing and "understanding") is A LOT easier than learning science.

Then you attacked my opinion saying it was a logical fallacy - which in fact it was you making in your attack - which I proved beyond any doubt nonetheless. Now you are asking me to stay on topic when I refute your puny debative attacks ?


"For belief in God - religion is not a requirement."
ZZZzzzzzzz ... dude, are you for real?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Your have an opinion, but are not supporting it logically. I am not attacking that opinion, it is just an opinion. I am not trying to refute your opinion on religions, I am focusing on belief in God.

Buddhists don't believe in God, yet Buddhism is a religion. So belief in God and religion are not synonymous.

Comparing learning religion to learning science is a useless comparative effort.

Anyone can learn science, atheist or theist both can learn science.

Atheists cannot learn faith in God, they cannot learn to practice faith in God, as the practice of faith in God starts from a positive belief in the existence of God, and atheists begin with a denial in the existence of God.

It is impossible for those who have a belief in non God to learn to have faith in God.

Additionally, the facility of learning something has nothing to do with the value of that something, the truth or falsity of that something, etc.

Belief in God does not require a religion. The topic is about belief in God, not about religion.

God and religion are not synonymous as proven above.

Please try to stay on the topic. Your distractions are very similar to those of Longshot.

Quote from Gringinho:

Hehe, I gave my short answer in my first post on this topic and said the short answer is that "science SHOULD make religion obsolete". I also mentioned that learning religion (as in believing and "understanding") is A LOT easier than learning science.

Then you attacked my opinion saying it was a logical fallacy - which in fact it was you making in your attack - which I proved beyond any doubt nonetheless. Now you are asking me to stay on topic when I refute your puny debative attacks ?


"For belief in God - religion is not a requirement."
ZZZzzzzzzz ... dude, are you for real?

ZZZzzzzzzz, you seem to have forgotten me when it comes to debating using logics years back here on ET ... hehe.

 

[Gringinho]

ZZZzzzzzzz wrote:

Your have an opinion, but are not supporting it logically. I am not attacking that opinion, it is just an opinion. I am not trying to refute your opinion on religions, I am focusing on belief in God.
Buddhists don't believe in God, yet Buddhism is a religion. So belief in God and religion are not synonymous.

" B hence not G. B hence R. Therefore G not equals R." Where do you get you logics from?

Comparing learning religion to learning science is a useless comparative effort. Anyone can learn science, atheist or theist both can learn science.

Yes, anyone (people) can learn science.

Atheists cannot learn faith in God, they cannot learn to practice faith in God.
It is impossible for those who have faith in God to learn to have faith in God.

I'm more or less speechless ... you say first that people can't change, then you say that those who already believe - can't learn to believe?

Additionally, the facility of learning something has nothing to do with the value of that something, the truth or falsity of that something, etc.

Did I ever state anything opposite of that? However, various schools of philosophy will take unkindly to being able to "learn something" that is untrue - i.e holding it as "knowledge" when it's not the actual truth. It's called epistemology in philosophy.

Belief in God does not require a religion. The topic is about belief in God, not about religion. God and religion are not synonymous as proven above.

Belief in God does imply religion. Religion does not imply belief in God.
It's really that simple. You fail at proving anything here - that is obvious, you just said something that is untrue. As a matter of fact belief in God DOES imply religion.

Please try to stay on the topic. Your distractions are very similar to those of Longshot.

I am staying on topic - replying to your puny attacks. It's just that you seem to be feeling that you are losing a debate, instead of trying to conduct and introduce proper reasoning. I remember Longshot too.

With each answer now, you have introduced new totally absurd consequences and attacks on my opinions. That is just sad ...


With science as knowledge, you do not necessarily have the need for belief in any god or religion. You can make rational reasoning using science to explain the world, instead of using religion. Those are both logical and true statements.

Now, the connotations that it voids religion in any person is not the same. I.e a scientist can also be religious - but he will obviously face dilemmas that challenge his religion - it's just that he holds religion as the "greater truth" and chooses to believe - AKA "the leap of faith" which is central to all religion.


I hope this little "exercise" has shown that you are almost lost when it comes to using logics, and have given you more insight to my opinion.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from Gringinho:

Your have an opinion, but are not supporting it logically. I am not attacking that opinion, it is just an opinion. I am not trying to refute your opinion on religions, I am focusing on belief in God.
Buddhists don't believe in God, yet Buddhism is a religion. So belief in God and religion are not synonymous.

Buddhists don't hold a belief in God.
Religions hold a belief in God.

Therefore Buddhism is not a religion?

Absurd.

Buddhism is a religion, just not a religion that is about the belief in God.

Belief in God and religion are not synonymous.

Comparing learning religion to learning science is a useless comparative effort. Anyone can learn science, atheist or theist both can learn science.

Yes, anyone (people) can learn science.


I'm more or less speechless ... you say first that people can't change, then you say that those who already believe - can't learn to believe?

Faith in God is not learned. Beliefs are not learned, they are a decision of the mind to hold something as true.

A person can learn about a belief or belief system, but the essential belief itself is not learned. The belief is adopted, not born of a learning process.

The decision to continue to hold the belief when new information is presented is common. If the belief is dependent on old ideas for its existence, then it may become obsolete when new ideas are introduced.

Atheist have not learned to believe in non God, they have adopted that belief.

A Catholic may lose his religion of Catholicism, but still hold to his belief in God because belief in God and religion are not synonymous.

Science has done nothing to invalidate belief in God, it may have done some things to make people question their religious beliefs, but it has been show that religions beliefs and belief in God are not synonymous.

It's really that simple. You fail at proving anything here - that is obvious, you just said something that is untrue. As a matter of fact belief in God DOES imply religion.

Now you are fudging with the use of the term "imply."

Yes, something may imply something else, but that is not the same as saying something is synonymous as something else.

Ignorant people wrongly assume that Buddhists belief in God, because Buddhism is a religion.

It has been show that someone can lose their religion and still hold to belief in God, it has been show that the Buddhist religion does not hold to the belief in God.

So religion and God are not synonymous.


I am staying on topic - replying to your puny attacks. It's just that you seem to be feeling that you are losing instead a debate of trying to introduce proper reasoning. I remember Longshot too.

No, you are going off topic. The topic is belief in God being made obsolete by science, which is simply not true.

Science has not made belief in God obsolete. Science has rendered no qualified opinion on the existence of God or the validity of belief in God.

People have chosen to adopt belief in science as a replacement to their belief in God, but that does not make belief in God obsolete for anyone but themselves...

 

[Gringinho]

ZZZzzzzzzz, I find what you have written utter nonsense and you are obviously just nonsensical.

You try to claim "logics", but you fail even the most basic laws of logic. Also - you can't fit "everything" (in your case "anything") to the various systems of logic - and keep in mind there are many types of logics - but you still need to avoid the absurdities that you presented.

I will not bother debate it more with you - since I already presented my opinions on the topic, and you are just running in circles biting your tail like a mad dog.

Hehe, I have better things to do ...

Religion is stupid - and you more or less just cemented that opinion of mine.