In a recent discussion i claimed that if theology presumes the existence of god before investigation it disqualifies itself as a science. The counterargument was that science itself starts with assumptions it cannot prove.
So my question to you guys is:
Is there a fundamental difference between presuming the existence of god and then building up from that starting point on the one hand and using axioms in science or presuming things like the existence of an objective world on the other?
2 Likes
Correction. Science starts out with a hypothesis, the truth- value of which is unknown before it is tested. Then sets about devising tests aimed at finding said truth value.
1 Like
Yes, a world of difference.
In science, the only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths, and every fundemental assumption is subject to review . . . and this means thatâevery so oftenâthere are drastic changes.
As an example, the Euclidean geometry of Classical Greece (based on five axioms) never failed us, and has never been wrong for over 2,000 years.
Even so, mathematicians like Paul Dirac and Lobachevsky pioneered a branch of mathematics called ânon-Euclidean geometryâ by discarding Euclidâs fifth postulate, which concerns parallel lines. Einstein made use of non-Euclidean geometry in describing the structure of space-time, and both general and special relativity were the result.
There are many more examples that I can give from medicine, chemistry, physics, and biology.
In order to answer your points, I would say that science is refined over time as we learn and understand more, while religion seems to see the world in terms of absolutes (although I can see potential arguments about a few exceptions).
Iâpersonallyâdonât really believe in absolutes, as the only thing that seems constant is change.
Because change is constant, the absolutes of religion is at odds with the realities of human existence, and this has been becoming more and more obvious as we learn and understand more.
As an example, consider the Biblical idea that there are only two genders . . . which is an idea relevent today with all of the anti-LGBTQ legislation that being pushed in the USA.
Well . . . it turns out that boys have an XY chromosome arrangement, while girls have an XX arrangement, and this is just as (if not more!) relevent to gender as a penis or a vagina.
Some âboysâ are born with an XXY arrangment, or even XXXY chromosomes, and such boys exhibit many feminine traits. The 80âs era super model, Playboy bunny, and James Bond girl Tula has an XXXY arrangment of chromosomes, and is a women in every respect except for the existence of a penis.
Also, we can look at this in another way: People who were exposed to the drug thalidomide while in utero can be born with extra appendages in odd places on the body. Please see below:
So, if a girl was born with a penis growing out of her forehead or shoulder, no one would bat an eye if it was surgically removed as soon as possible. Andâif you agree with thisâthen whatâs the difference if someone like Tula undergoes transition surgery to become more physically female? And why do we look at XXY or XXXY boys as being âboysâ with feminine traits, rather than looking at them as girls with a few masculine traits?
And if we choose to make an exception for this circumstance (which is called Kleinfelter Syndrome), then why canât we make exceptions for other forms of âgender dysphoriaâ?
This is an example of where science and religion are at odds, and where religion does not reflect reality. It is also an example of how religion hurts people by being unable and/or unwilling to change.
I hope this addresses your points, and I hope that you get back to me.
Below, see pic of Tula:
BTW, another point occurred to me after I wrote the above post: It says in the Bible that everything was created as male and female, and religious culture often sees this as an absolute truth.
Well . . . itâs a truth that miscarriage and infant mortality were much, much higher in Biblical times. A frequent cause of miscarriage are chromosomal and other genetic abnormalities. I believe (and please note that I said âI believeâ, and not that âI knowâ, as Iâm an RN and I donât want to misrepresent my educational accomplishments with misleading claims) that more people like Tula are born in modern times because of better medicine and better prenatal care.
So, I believe that such people were much more rare in Biblical times because more of them wouldnât have made it out of the womb. This means that Iâm arguing that modern medicine and prenatal care may have made such people much more common than in Biblical times, so the idea that there are only two genders may have actually been much more correct in the distant past.
Again, please note that I donât have statistical evidence to support this claim . . . I believe this idea because of my experience in the medical field, and I donât have specific numbers to back me up on this.
2 Likes
No. Science begins with observations. Things that are happening. And then it looks for explanations. While explanations are hypothetical, they are far from being unproven assumptions. The assumptions of science are based on solid foundations of facts and evidence. They are based on facts and evidence so they can be tested. Equating a scientific hypothesis with a religious assumption is like making a cherry pie out of mud. You donât have a clue what you are talking about.
Absolutely. Science begins with observable facts and then attempts to explain the facts with measurable and observable experimentation. When you make an assumption first, âGod Exists,â and then seek to find evidence in support of that. You are doing science backward.
This is called âThe fallacy of incomplete evidence.â You commit it by seeking out information that supports your point of view and ignoring all other information. (This is not Science). A scientific theory must explain all the data⌠or as near as possible. all the data. And this explanation must be independently verifiable. (Others can test it and get the same results.)
Beginning with a God and then trying to justify the God you believe in, is fallacious to its core.
3 Likes
Why would anyone try to claim theology is a scientific discipline? If the claim provides no data to test, and is unfalsifiable then that alone would mean science would have to reject the idea as unscientific, but I have never heard of any theists claiming theology was a science?
Yes, the results we get from science reflect objective reality, simply put, it works. Scientists get the same results, religions do not, their spiel reflects the cultures and epochs from which they are derived. Also all scientific ideas must be falsifiable and remain tentative, and open to scrutiny, religions claims to have immutable truth, even when they are demonstrably erroneous.
1 Like
If you assume the existence of X, and derive a set Y(X) of statements about X, then the validity of Y(X) will depend on the validity of X. If X is false, then the validity of Y(X) falls, no matter how appealing Y(X) may be. And you cannot go the other way, in assuming or wishing Y(X) and therefore argue that X exists. In other words, all the appealing statements about a god and the consequences of a god that theologians may derive about it donât mean jack shit, as their validity will depend on the existence of the god, as determined by objective empirical tests. If the god cannot be shown to exist, the statements are only of academic value.
1 Like
Fundamentally there is no difference; however in practice there is a great difference. Ideally your axioms should be as non-controversial as possible. We are meant to accept axioms without question, so it is âpoliteâ to keep them non-controversial.
Starting with the axiom:
- God is real.
is a slap in the face
1 Like
When it often forms a premise in their arguments itâs also a circular reasoning fallacy. Though they wouldnât usually word it like that of course. More like a none too subtle and unevidenced assumption, something along the lines of âcreation needs a creatorâ. Note creation is just assumed to be true, theyâve added what they think is another axiom and moved god along, as if this makes it a sound argument.
So viewing that objectively or critically, the assumption that anything was created leaps out at us, to them itâs an âaxiomâ, they simply know itâs true. Now one would wonder why theyâre bothering with a redundant tautology of course, but they probably are just amazed anyone has bothered to question their first axiom.
In science the end result must be testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. So a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian etc etc scientists all arrive at the same result, this is in stark contrast to religions of course, and what does this suggest about the axiom god exists? To me it suggests it is unreliable, if it can be used to get wildly different conclusions.
Maybe I need to add faith, I mean we know this works if applied correctly, right? Except it doesnât, as you can again get any result you want with faith, and feel confident that your result is the one thatâs true.
Knowledge is a word often misused in religious apologetics, to simply describe subjective personal experience.
1 Like
God does not qualify as an Axiom:
Here is a difference you might consider. Science does not make claims about reality. Science builds models of reality and then uses them. These models are always subject to change and are based entirely on the observable, measurable, universe around us. That which is logical and sound comports with reality. So a scientific axiom, "Assumes something to be real,* Religious belief asserts something to be real. God is real. Spirits exist. These are not Axiomatic assumptions, but rather fundamental assertions, âTruths,â that are not subject study and are completely unnecessary. We donât need them to describe the world around us. When we run across something we do not know, we simply say âWe do not yet know.â and not âGod done it.â All scientific axioms are subject to factual evaluation. They are used because they work. They work consistently. They demonstrate their value by being consistently useful. (No god idea has ever accomplished the same.)
4 Likes
There are some that get most of the way there. The one that immediately comes to mind is the Church of Christ, Scientist (AKA Christian Science). One of their key books is titled Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.
2 Likes
What about the Jehovahâs Witnesses who claim young Earth science in their Watchtower magazines? They seem to claim that The Bible is a science textbook.
Or do I misunderstand you?
1 Like
I believe God exists because of how His world relates to our world. Animals do not have intelligence or relationships and social or economy like a human does. This shows we did not evolve from monkeys. or apes. Science assumes alot that is backed up by a case here and another case there. But God consistent in His approach and closely connected with evidence.
1 Like
Another claim, no evidence at all.
What a spectacularly ignorant claim, youâre very wrong again.
You;re kidding right? I am watching a lengthy series about the hierarchical structure of a troop of chimpanzees, again you;re spectacularly wrong.
Wow, we both evolved from and are apes, humans are in the taxonomical group of great apes, youâre very wrong again.
The only assumptions I see are from you, and the successes of the methods of science are manifest in the results.
yet you have failed to offer any objective evidence at all, it is becoming clear you donât even understand what represents objective evidence, the fact that you are now denying objective facts like evolution, along with your cartoon characterisation of science here also speaks volumes.
1 Like
I have news for you, sir. Not only did we evolve from apes, we are apes.
5 Likes
You can be if you want but i see myself a child of God. That is more empowering, true and alot more provable. Someone sees a big head buried in the ground one day and then says we all evolved from apes. That is basically how this conclusion got into peoples heads.
1 Like
*"Humans and other Great Apes. *
Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.
Humans are primates, and are classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).
This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae)."
Are you suggesting your deity shares 98% of chimpanzee DNA? Only humans do, and that is an objective fact.
Nope, try againâŚ
Not even close, bless. Darwin placed humans in the same taxonomical group as the great apes, and we have since learned that we share a vastly higher percentage of DNA with those great apes than with all other species, that is called objective evidence. You seem woefully ignorant of even the most basic scientific methods.
2 Likes
Oh look, more preachy bollocks, sanctimonious panhandling and lies. Havenât you learned your lesson yet?
What you believe, and what reality tells us is the case, have a habit of being very different.
We have ZERO evidence for your cartoon magic man.
Your cartoon magic man is bad fiction. Grow up.
You really are woefully ignorant of reality, arenât you?
Oh wait, scientific experiments have been conducted, establishing that numerous non-human species are capable of sophisticated problem solving, including problem solving requiring cooperation and trust.
Bullshit. The evidence from both palaeontology and molecular phylogeny is conclusive - we ARE apes, that share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Not only that, we share a surprising number of behaviours.
BARE FACED LIE
Science is in the business of TESTING ASSUMPTIONS TO DESTRUCTION.
Liar.
The data points science bases its ideas upon now run into the trillions.
Youâre both ignorant and duplicitous.
Bullshit. There is ZERO evidence for your cartoon magic man. Your sad little goat herder mythology is bad fiction, scribbled by piss-stained nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.
Now if all you have to offer here is blind assertions, preachy bollocks and sanctimonious panhandling, you wonât last long here.
Bullshit. Your cartoon magic man is bad fiction. There is ZERO evidence for your cosmic narcissist.
BARE FACED LIE AND CRASS STRAWMAN CARICATURE .
You really are an obnoxious specimen, arenât you?
The data connecting us to other great apes involves tems of millions of data points, including genetic data. Youâre not only a liar, but a bad liar at that.
I am a bit conflicted here, on the one hand there are mountains of research contradicting this idiotic assertion, on the other hand there are your posts. So Iâd definitely say some animals seem to lack intelligence, though it is relative of course.
3 Likes
Iâd assumed that was an attempt at trolling, albeit a very poor one? Surely no one can be quite that ill-informed?
I think you can be even more specific - âsome individual animals seem to lack intelligenceâ
3 Likes