BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

Ok I confess the title is a bit of a ruse to draw folks in as I do not see a direct conflict between the two because they are, as I see it, diametrically opposed concepts.
However I do find myself wondering how it is that a faith based concept like Religion continues to hold such sway in a world where Science and logical deductive reasoning are so very predominant and obviously correct?

You see I come from a really quite orthodox religious background and it took me quite a while to accept that God was just a grown up version of Santa with heaven, hell and all the associated flannel just a huge fairy story concocted by 4th century clerics as a means to control (and extract taxes from) the wider 'unwashed' populace.

So I'm going to suspend the usual forum rules and issue a direct challenge to anyone out there who wants to explain it to us, convince us, one way or the other if we, the Mod's, are wrong to deny religion a say on a Science and Technology forum and god is in his heaven and the devil in hell and all is well with the world, or we are controlled by some mystical all pervading force, or its all Ley lines and Mother Earth, or whatever.

I will try and put aside my personal prejudices although the good Shadowwolf is currently sharpening his favourite blade.......... er quill as I type, and goodness knows what Jamie is about to do.

[The Beige Avenger]

It's perhaps a natural prejudice to treat religion and Christianity or the organisation "The Church" (be that whatever sect it may be) as synonymous concepts but for me, I have no problem with religious people who express an appreciation for the Universe in a different way.

Ironically, it is quite often the precise opposite message of religion that the churches may preach... i.e. messages of hatred disguised in a myriad of forms or desires to empower the few who would seek power over those who would follow out of whatever motive they are operating under (love, fear, curiosity etc.). So, I'd like to separate 'religion' from faith because AFAIK all religions are incomplete, old, replicated interpretations that are all, literally speaking, quite incorrect. The inerrant biases to the religion, based on geography and demography heavily influences my opinion on them.

So "faith", is there a defence?

What is outside our Universe? i.e. From whence did it camest?

We do not know.

Some ideas seem more reasonable than others, some ideas are nice and comforting, some tread the line between awe and despair and some (even the bona fide scientific theories) seem quite bizarre. But we don't know... Like it or not, there is still room for a creator for the answer to the big question.

[M Paul Lloyd]

nice and comforting

I'll accept that, in as much as I do find the universe a lot less cozy and comforting since I dispelled god from it. A bit like opening the door to the full glorious reality of a cold and frosty night after having viewed everything through a distorting and limited fish eye peep hole lens.
But

there is still room for a creator for the answer to the big question

Sorry but I really do need some sort of evidence for that notion, for starters what is 'the big question' ?.

[Jamie]

In that case there's still room for the tooth fairy, because the creation of money from deciduous teeth is unexplainable.

If you're seven.

[Fleck]

Our evolved intelligence comes with a heavy price. We are the only creature on earth that is aware that one day we are going to die. Natural selection has made us frightened of death so god is a way round death I suppose.
A few religious people I know have said we believe in god because there is nothing else to believe in, and they have to believe in something.
I wish I could believe in god.

[M Paul Lloyd]

But surely you can believe in something like science or even just your own existence?

ok so it doesn't feel so safe without a great big boss in the sky keeping an eye on it all but the universe is no less a wonderful place for it surely?

[Thinker]

When ever the moral motivation of any given subject is brought into discussion, you will always find a cleric, vicar or bishop there giving his views. Because who is better qualified in the subject of Morals than a person who derives their moral motivation from "a book". This book in question has also been translated, revised and tweaked so many times that anything that it can be interpreted as anything.

Religion finds its roots in a time when we didn't understand the universe. We didn't have the tools and understanding to decipher the stars, the small and the biological. The people of that age did, what anyone would do, they tried to understand the world around them. We can't blame them for inventing a solution to the problem.

But, we now know different. Science is about investigation. It's about testing the results we find to prove them wrong and if it can't proved wrong, we come to the conclusion that it is a fact. But we don't call it a fact, we call it a theory and it's that word "theory" that theologians always jump on. The theory of evolution has so much evidence that it is a fact. We can't dance around the gaps in the theory, but it still doesn't escape the fact that there is an enormous about of evidence for it. The religious will jump on the holes in the theory, they never look at the evidence that we do have.

Was it Isaac Asimov that said "Inspect every bit of pseudo-science and you will find a security blanket — a thumb to suck on or a skirt to hold. Moreover, it is astonishing to find how many people fail to understand that X is comforting does not imply that X is true."

The religious do not want to let go of that security blanket. I mean what a horrible thought it is...One day you are going to die and then that's it, no tomorrow.

[Thinker]

But surely you can believe in something like science or even just your own existence?

ok so it doesn't feel so safe without a great big boss in the sky keeping an eye on it all but the universe is no less a wonderful place for it surely?

It is. The universe is a wonderfully beautiful place, it just takes one to go out and look up at the night sky on a clear night to see that we are so insignificant, but so bloody lucky to be here.

[Twelfth Monkey]

It seems to me that since Galileo (and probably before), there is a history of religion suppressing and/or undermining science where the two contradicted one another. If religion would stay off science's turf (as it were), it would be easier for the two to coexist. Faith schools teaching creationism alongside evolution as theories with equal merit is the best example I can think of. Once you start trying to explain away the fossil record as a method of testing faith, all credibility flies out of the window.

[The Beige Avenger]

I think that this forum as science and technology isn't the place for discussions on religion just like it's not the place to discuss art.... I don't think there should be any hard rules regarding discussion topics as it's just demographics; we're here because of a shared interest in science. Folks that come with religion here get beaten with knowledge.

The claim that we were created / designed literally I cannot accept... But... we were created by the Universe. In perhaps the infinite possibilities of potential Universes, ours had properties that enabled matter and energy to behave as they do. From the beginning of our one in an 'infinite' chance universe, there were another possible infinite number of possibilities; things happened as they did that eventually enabled a living creature, created from the Universe, to question the very nature of it. To me, that's enormously powerful and there's no need of a design, a plan or any notion of a human-esque "God" father.

My original post was merely an attempt to play devil's advocate. However, I've still got no idea what goes on outside our universe (and AFAIK, no one does)... or even if this universe actually exists.

[...]

i recall my very first post many many years back, way before "the great wipe" as a few here will remember, and it was this "the big bang, is this yet another name or way of saying God?" and i remember the thread getting a bit heated and it, eventually, being locked.
i still think its a valid question.
my feelings are if god is there science will eventually unearth him/her/it and then move onto the next problem.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Some interesting points there and I'm getting the overall impression that most of you accept an absence of god, but I am still left with my original concern as to what makes a person who has based their life and work upon the deductive reasoning of science to then claim to believe in god, and amazingly I have encountered quite a few who claim to do so myself.

For myself I used to believe in god because I was told to and it was only when I had looked into it with a slightly less gullible attitude that I realised it was all just a sham.

I think that this forum as science and technology isn't the place for discussions on religion just like it's not the place to discuss art....

And I have to agree Mr.A, and indeed I have tried to think of the forum as a perfectly secular haven, devoid of any religious bias, although this has not always been the case and if it gets derailed, as @@ recalls from the past experience, then the experiment will be at an end but I really do want to know if anyone with a scientific outlook can reconcile this with any sort of religious faith?

You see I have listened to a lot of comments along the lines of 'oh but their has to be something more to it all surely' or the old classic 'everywhere I look at the world I see the hand of god at work' !!! No, sorry, unless you can show me actual evidence I'm not buying it.

I'm left wondering how someone who can accept such an entirely unsupported concept can call themselves a scientist? It just doesn't make sense.
As listed here
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

[KingPhillip]

As evidenced by the linked quotes, not all the beliefs converge. Claiming God created the Universe is not the same as saying God is still actively instrumental. The former is quite difficult to prove or disprove.

Believing God is active is also quite different than the religions that have sprouted since such belief first took root.

There is so much cross-contamination of these concepts we think it's rather simple to place them in a sterile cold hard laboratory and examine them along with control groups.

I went through a phase of agnosticism. In the end, I came up empty. To accept God's magnificence and benefit from association with religions that share that belief, I would have to put up with the consequentially bad baggage they carry around. Not putting up with the baggage is of course heresy, which leads to excommunication and expulsion.

Perhaps a mini-forum with several micro-focuses may lead to better responses. As is, the believers aren't likely to take the fisherman's bait.

[Thinker]

I will put my own opinions of god and religion into a sort of mental box and lock it for the second.

I can understand why some scientists believe in god. They spend there lives investigating what makes up our world and the more they look into it, the more awesome it appears to be. Everything appears to have a purpose in the scheme of things. The more we look into the behaviour of atoms and quarks, the more incomprehendable it all appears to be giving the impression that we are not supposed to know everything.

I don't think anyone could deny that the universe and everything within it looks designed, if you are unaware of the complex processes that make it up. But as you know what makes things work, you have no need for superstitious belief. And the scientists that continue to believe in god, even though they know what makes the universe work probably want to hang on to the HOPE that he/she is there, because...hey! ...it would be pretty cool and nice to think that a person is listening in on prayers and someone is watching over us as we go about our daily lives. I think it call comes down to that terrible thing that always causes you so much dissapointment in life...Hope!

On the flip side though, where is he when the Disallowed hits the fan?

[M Paul Lloyd]

by KingPhillip
Perhaps a mini-forum with several micro-focuses may lead to better responses. As is, the believers aren't likely to take the fisherman's bait.

I'll bear that in mind KingPhillip, and yes I can imagine they are looking on but concerned about a potential ambush, which is understandable as it is quite likely.

by Thinker
On the flip side though, where is he when the Disallowed hits the fan?

Ah yes the old 'freedom of choice' let out claus.

Thing is the universe is a wonderful enough place without the need for a creator and the more I learn about it the more amazing it becomes but when someone tries to equate the big bang with 'let their be light' from Genesis, it just doesn't seem to be the sort of analogy that scientists should entertain?

After all how seriously would you take an astronomers credentials if they claimed to also be an astrologer? After all you can show a complete lack of any influence between the wider solar system and our planet, and any astronomer worth their salt will know this.
Besides do you know of any universities that run proper courses in astrology?

And whilst on the subject, how can anyone in a faith school who is recieving lessons in natural selection and creationism not be lead down the wrong path, because that is what will happen regardless of what anyone might say, and then wonder why the only area of study that it will lead to is theology ??

[Thinker]

Besides do you know of any universities that run proper courses in astrology?

http://www.tsd.ac.uk/en/courses/postgraduatecourses/maculturalastronomyandastrology/

Couldn't resist a challenge!

And whilst on the subject, how can anyone in a faith school who is recieving lessons in natural selection and creationism not be lead down the wrong path, because that is what will happen regardless of what anyone might say, and then wonder why the only area of study that it will lead to is theology ??

Well, creationists have now come up with the wonderful concept of evolution being a for creationsim idea. Because of course, somebody had to kickstart the beginning of life afterall!

I was brought up in a school that taught us christianity as well. Embarrassing as it is, I originally throught god was a woman and looked like the woman off of the PG Tips box. But, most of the time, I saw it more about history, rather than fact. I never used to take any of it seriously or literally.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Besides do you know of any universities that run proper courses in astrology?

http://www.tsd.ac.uk/en/courses/postgraduatecourses/maculturalastronomyandastrology/

Couldn't resist a challenge!

I rather hoped my "proper courses" disclaimer would cover that one.

I take your point about not taking it seriously but in a faith school system I am very concerned that indoctrination based along religious and therefore creationist lines will be endemic. Yes the students may be at liberty to choose but peer pressure will almost certainly over-ride such a choice?

And how is a biologist going to get on in the real world if they think everything was designed the way it is by some unseen entity?

[Thinker]

Yes the students may be at liberty to choose but peer pressure will almost certainly over-ride such a choice?

I think such an idea may be plausible in america where athiesm is frowned upon. But I think it's safe to say that it is the opposite in this country. Although, people may put on their census' that they are CofE, christian, etc. It's only because thats how they were brought up, rather than what they believe now.

And how is a biologist going to get on in the real world if they think everything was designed the way it is by some unseen entity?

Well for a biologist it's easy, they don't associate it with their work. And even if they did, there could always be an underlying presence of god in the fabric of reality. We athiests scream "Where's the evidence?", but for some people they just don't need evidence, they "just know" that god exists and if that's what they want to believe, then who are you or I to critisize them. Let them get on with it, as long as their belief doesn't get in the way of sciences quest for answers, then it's not a problem.

A phycisist on the other hand, their job is about find answers to things like the beginning of the universe. But again, they just don't associate god with the living breathing cosmos that we can investigate. God lives outside this cosmos. I haven't got the foggiest where he's meant to be hiding, mind you!

I sound like I'm siding with them, but honestly...I'm not!

[KingPhillip]

Let me toss in a spanner, in particular, sports athletes. Most have benefited from science via nutrition, training and such. And they also benefited from guidance from important people in their lives, be it parents, legal guardians, coaches or mentors. When these important people pass on, they are looked upon briefly in the sky as an ever present "entity", especially when the athletes are successful.

Some cultures share the similarity in terms of respecting elders and ancestors who have passed on, and not bring shame or misfortune to the collective family line.

Are these separate from the belief in God, God's active participation, and/or religions formed from the shared belief in God? Are they all part and parcel of the same scientifically biochemical complex that is our brain, mind and body?

[Shadowwolf]

This might be a bit long..., who am I kidding of course it's long and it might also be a bit muddled so I apologise for any ensuing confusion as I try to address some aspects raised.

...as I do not see a direct conflict between the two because they are, as I see it, diametrically opposed concepts.

I'd disagree, they are very much in conflict as at a basic level they both seek to provide explanations for the same thing, the world we live in, its origins and where it's going if anywhere. It may be dressed in a variety of ways but it is essentially the same effort. It was much easier in the past when science knew less or practically did not exist, but that has changed. Resulting in a much more direct conflict as various faiths find their theologies in direct opposition to science, so much so that faith actively fights against the findings of science; none more obvious today than the ongoing struggle over evolution. Lately, given our ever increasing library of knowledge, more moderate interpretations have accepted the frankly undeniable facts and claim now to only answer the "Bigger Questions" whatever those may be and that these are beyond science. However, they still promote a thoroughly incorrect manner of viewing our world even if only in relation to these ephemeral big questions, a view based not on observable reality but on subjective inner desires to merely believe, to have faith in whatever. A position antithetical to science, reason and critical thinking and that's supposed to be okay. But I think that any suspension of reality is not a good thing, it sets a bad precedent and can lead to further suspensions of reality for wishful thinking; vast swathes of the alt-med industry depend on such for instance.

Of course if your point is that all other concerns aside religion cannot credibly challenge science what with it being based on evidence-less wishful thinking and thus unable to explain anything about our objective reality, I can see that.

It's perhaps a natural prejudice to treat religion and Christianity or the organisation "The Church" as synonymous concepts...

It is a common idea encountered - at least to me - that the organisations are somehow not religion but some unfortunate corruption of it*, the problem is that they are more synonymous than may be appreciated. At their core they suffer from that same issue I mentioned above, the suspension of reality. Sure one may have stripped away all the dogma but their fuzzy conceptions have no more evidence to support them than the established organisations do, they both require and validate belief without evidence. Now it is better to jettison the often divisive and hateful doctrines that come packaged with the established faiths, but it in essence still holds to a belief in something that's not there, or at the very least has no evidence to indicate that anything has ever been there. It's exactly the same thing that the more structured faiths do, they just have more certainty in the stuff they're making up.

Reality should matter, there should be evidence for a position whether it is the complicated theologies or the fuzzy notion that something is just out there. Because even the allegedly harmless fuzzy conceptions and moderates place belief without evidence as a virtue, that suspending reality is a good thing. This leads to faith being ubiquitous in society and provides a societally acceptable place for the more extreme views to live. If merely having faith in nebulous concepts is okay, if actual evidence does not matter, well, the same argument gets deployed by the more certain interpretations. They have faith in their version and that's all that matters to them.

What is outside our Universe? i.e. From whence did it camest?

We do not know.

I agree, we don't know but that's where it should stop until we are in a better position to know. That unknown is not an invitation for filling it with whatever fancy pleaseth someone most, not a gap to hide an increasingly harried deity in, it's an unknown and nothing more. Whilst it may technically leave room for a creator of some description, until we have evidence to suggest the existence of something for which there is no provenance, then the only reasonable option is to provisionally conclude that there are none. It is also a simpler answer. If there is no way to distinguish a verse in which a non-interfering creator deity exists from one in which there is none, then we have no need and no reason for adding that extra variable.

As for why does faith persist. Well to begin with, even though temporal power and control of the faithful is intrinsically linked to organised religion it was probably never formed for that specific reason. Religion is primitive in genesis, the result of early cognisant peoples with next to no applicable tools attempting to explain the very big, often frightening world they inhabited and were controlled by. They had no idea why the ground shook, why the rains and crops failed, why the sun came and went and so many other phenomena. They suffered with the same cognitive issues we experience today, confirmation bias, confusing correlation with causation, cognitive dissonance, tribalism and so on. Without checks on these or even a knowledge of what they were it is unsurprising that whatever happened were viewed as manifestations of unseen entities and it behooved these peoples to understand these unseen forces better if they wished to prosper. These concepts evolved with society and led to specific priestly castes employed to interpret the will of the divine. Of course if the divine is the creator and master then those who form the bridge between mortals and their masters are obviously important and favoured by the divine, hence to be listened to and obeyed. Needless to say if your livelihood depends on remaining relevant then you must maintain influence and actively combat any encroaching alternates; not all that dissimilar to endless iPhone model updates and spurious litigation. It's not a conscious act but an exercise in self-deception and from it sprang greater levels of organisation, doctrinal cohesion and convoluted theological edifices as the holes become evident.

This has been going on for millenia so it is very, very ingrained in societies. It has created the complicated doctrines that we find in the successful faiths centuries of papering over cracks, jettisoning irksome texts and creating torturous theological constructs to finagle their way around thundering errors and offensive histories. It has created the many defence mechanisms to hide behind; of belief without question as a virtue; the common instruction to shun the apostate; the sense of privilege to silence any detraction to the faith; that as so many believe, the faith is owed a political voice and power; that faith is personal and should be left alone even though the same groups use it to justify altering their society; that a lack of faith is somehow intrinsically wrong; that speaking against a doctrine is also disrespecting the person holding it and rude; that evidence is not necessary but they'll take it if it's going. So many people are just born into whatever the significant faith is of their region or their ethnic background. It is then a lottery as to how greatly the parents indoctrinate their spawn in the relevant dogma, and how much they stunt that persons intellectual growth. All no more than an accident of birth. Whether committedly involved or blasé about their inherited faith they almost always carry the basic defences and at least a sense of belonging. So even the uncommitted can react with some sense of personal injury should contrary views be openly professed. More importantly though, they don't question, they just assume that whatever faith it is remains true and that questioning it is just wrong. Thus anything that inherently puts the lie to religious claims - ie. science - can thus be considered suspect and arrogant. Thought is not a virtue in our society.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but I think that this in part feeds an all too common attitude of the arrogant learned elite, higher education is frequently and bizarrely looked down upon. Scientists and the highly educated are white coated boffins or eggheads and sometimes viewed as responsible for all societies ills, or the stuffy professors lost in musty piles of books closeted away from the world. So called "common sense" and uninformed personal beliefs are what matters most. Take the History Channel, the odd history program lost in a sea of truckers, fishermen, loggers and bombastic clowns bidding over abandoned lockers but the worst offenders? Ancient Aliens, Nostradamus and some D-lister on a credulous UFO hunt. Progs where every scrap of reason has been tossed out in favour of unfettered fantasy, evidence-less assertions for the whimsical world the proponents wish were true. Provided because that's what the audience has apparently demanded, demanded because they have been encouraged not to think too hard nor to question. Convinced that belief without evidence is a normal and good thing, heck, the less evidence there is the better! For instance, I have spoken to people who reject evolution because they object to the human connection with primates, as if reality is a matter of personal belief and evidence be damned! Given the seemingly endless ways that our modern civilisation indulges in self-deception from psychics, to alien abductions, to NWO conspiracies, to the alt-med industry. It is thus less surprising that the oldest deceptions are still around, being correct doesn't matter, what you would like reality to be is apparently more important.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned at any rate, religion simply cannot enter the arena of adding to our body of knowledge or science, for to do so it must enter under the rules of reason and science. However, this results in the respect vanishing, the privilege is not entertained, logic and reason will be mercilessly applied, evidence is required, faith is not a virtue nor an explanation and reason accurately applied simply results in the mists evaporating. Sure some scientists can be religious, however, that requires their faith being always carefully parceled far away from the science, never entering into the equation. If they don't parcel it away you get pseudo-scientific stupidity like creationist geology or ID. However, much of the debate around religion concerns internal contradictions, textual criticisms, the vile characters of their tales be they prophets or deities and historical debates about whether or not folks like Jesus ever existed; basically nothing to do with science per se. Like the Beige one says, it would be like discussing art on the forum, irrelevant. It is only where faith intersects with science, claims to be scientific etc. that may make it relevant here. Claims like ID is a better explanation than evolution, how does science explain X or what about the fine tuning argument for example. These can be conversations worth having if they should arise, but sweeping them under the carpet by virtue of the religious aspect we not only leave the door open to the charge of hiding from the truth. More importantly, it perpetuates the unreasonable pedestal of unquestioning respect that faith has appropriated to defend itself. However, the discussion will be on rational terms, religion does not get a say on its own special terms, it's not given a pass for the sake of amity and persons should not confuse criticising the idea with attacking the person holding the idea.

As I said somewhere way above, reality should matter to everyone and the only way to discern that is through science and reason.


* - This corruption angle also misses the fact that these organisations grew up from foundations in much older and very different societies where practices distasteful to our modern era were the norm, they merely adhered to the alleged pronouncements of their almighty from thereon rather than corrupt them. One could say that those dogmas which do not change are at least consistent, unlike those which change with prevailing popular opinion - though often grudgingly - and thus show an active human element in doctrinal formation or a confused, obviously lesser deity doing as humanity instructs it. Change is good but it would be best if they could realise that they were clearly making it up as they went along and drop the charade. Besides for religion to have a message, indeed, for religion to exist then someone has to create that message, it's not something outside of human existence that we can access and maybe corrupt in the retelling, we create it entirely and thus we shape it to whatever we want it to be.

The other facet of this view is that it implies the older versions pre-corruption were somehow benign and good. For example, Jesus is not the peace loving, sandal wearing hippy of unconditional love he is often portrayed as and modern faiths have forgotten, that nice version is the actual corruption as a much nastier version is to be found in the good book.