Some vs Others

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

1) Science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist because you don't have any "evidence" to suggest the existence of such a thing. Until such evidence can be proffered, science will continue to deny such existence.

Science doesn't say anything for which proof is lacking doesn't exist per se, all Science is saying is that if no proof exist, it cannot be probed, tested, grown, replicated, analyzed, dissected, etc. In other words, it cannot be given scientifc credence until such time as proof is forthcoming.

Originally Posted by cwes

2) Religion is a delusion, and as a delusion while there may be some positive aspects to deluding people in such a way, the negatives of deluding (lieing) to people in such a way overpower the positives. One such negative is that it is unscientific to "invent" mythical beings to explain unknown phenomena.

When people 'believe' in something for which no proof exist, then, yes, self-delusion is a scientific answer for what you percieve when you see people attending church in droves. Self-delusion is a scientifically explicable behaviour, of which religion fits the bill perfectly. The fact that millions of people believe the same 'delusion', if that were indeed the case, says nothing; this is a particular delusion which is handed down from generation to generation, a meme thats honed its procreational elements to such a finely-tuned point, that it spans international borders and cultures.
This is not to say that it is indeed wrong or right, all I'm saying is that the 'delusion' argument is a scientifically sound one, and is an approach on the matter that satisfies scientific demands.

Originally Posted by cwes

First, as to point number 1. What evidence must be proffered to "prove" the existence of a supernatural being? How could one attempt such a feat?

Simply put, you can't. The moment any 'natural' evidence comes to the fore for what you'd expect to be a 'supernatural' entity, it simply ceases to be 'supernatural', by definition. The 'super' in 'supernatural' defines it as being 'beyond nature'. Clearly, if you want Science to give any credence to any concept such as 'God', you have to accept that either 'God' is in the realm of natural phenomena (where science operates), or that God simply doesn't exist at all. But then again, you don't have to bother with what Science have to say on the matter. Or, accept the fact that Science operates in realm 'x', and religion operates in realm 'y', and leave it at that.
By definition, the two will never play in the same sandbox, and we (religious folks and scientists alike) should stop trying to force them to do so.

Originally Posted by cwes

As to point number 2. If religion is a delusion, then why are a majority of people in the world and a majority of scientists (including world renown scientists) claim to have faith in some sort of supernatural power? What positives do you see coming from such a delusion, and are there any religions that you are aware of that have more positives than negatives? Also, what proof do you put forth that any or all religions were inventions of man?

Firstly, whether religion is a mass-delusion or not will not be decided by popular vote. That's not the way Truth works.
Secondly, there are plenty positives to be found in religion. Conversely, there are plenty negatives to be found as well. In my honest-to-dog personal opinion, I believe that all bads and all goods ascribed to religious input, are merely manifestations of human nature, and believers simply take religion as a short-cut easy-way-out answer for why the world is the way it is, why we have to die, why we are born, why we have to kill those not like us, why we have to be good, etc. But then again, that's just me.
Thirdly, Science does not have to put forth any evidence at all to disprove the existence of any deity or whether religions are invented by man or not. Religious folks made the claim, religious folk must supply the tests, analyses, samples, etc. Science can merely verify the results (which have to be repeatable, by the way). Science can merely stand on the sidelines saying "This is indeed interesting. But sadly, there's no proof. And we can't think of any experiment to prove this. So, up till the claimants can bring solid evidence, Science cannot regard Religion as anything more than a fairytale. This might sound a tad harsh, but see it in the spirit it was intended. No proof, no creedence. If Religion (or anything else, for that matter) wants to play ball with Science, it must play by the rules. No exeptions. And the rules, in this case, simply must discount religion. This state of affairs might only be temporary, but up until the point where evidence is forthcoming, that is the official position, as stipulated in Verse 8 of Section 12 of Chapter 3 of the Official Scientific Rulebook.[/quote]

Originally Posted by cwes

Also, with these two points, what do you see is a scientists job to do in the case of religion?

Without intentionally sounding callous, but...ahem...Nothing, really. There are millions of claims made every year, the one potentially workable, the other completely hare-brained. Parting the chaff from the wheat is determined exclusively by the weight of evidence presented, regardless of how silly a claim might be. And no, the sheer number of people believing a particular hare-brained/workable claim, will not determine the truth of the matter, and means exactly zero in the value Science will attach to the claim,

[cwes99_03]

I would like a few more posts to those questions before I make a reply. Thank you Boer for your comments.

[cwes99_03]

Anyone else have a response to the questions submitted in post 19.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

1) Science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist because you don't have any "evidence" to suggest the existence of such a thing. Until such evidence can be proffered, science will continue to deny such existence.

False. We can't see gravity but we've got reason to believe it exists. We can't see black holes but there's evidence to suggest that their existence is a valid theory. Science does demand evidence to draw conclusions.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

2) Religion is a delusion, and as a delusion while there may be some positive aspects to deluding people in such a way, the negatives of deluding (lieing) to people in such a way overpower the positives. One such negative is that it is unscientific to "invent" mythical beings to explain unknown phenomena.

Such blanket statements are themselves a poor method of seeking the truth and do not represent a quality scientific approach. Many religions serve a good purpose and provide sound moral structures for some. Some religions like hinduism or pantheism do noot need mythical beings, they consider nature itself to be their God.

Maybe you should clarify your topic. Is it really about religion or is it some leading, baiting attempt to lead into an attack on those that do not believe in God because they want evidence?

[cwes99_03]

Thank you, C1ay. Could you suggest better wording for point 1?

As to point two, it is still a valid thought that others on this thread have suggested. I have purposefully left it wide, to be narrowed at a later time if possible. At this point we are still in stage 1, obtaining information.

I have no intention of attacking those that do not believe in God for any reason. I'm simply performing a scientific method of research to determine how people of a scientific nature feel about religion and their reasons for such.
Many such other threads have been done in the theology forum, particularly the science vs religion and religion vs religion threads. However, none have asked the question I ask here. Instead they have been focused on the opposite side of the coin. 'Why religious ones feel they way they do' instead of 'why scientists feel the way they do'. A better understanding of this topic will help others to understand why some make the comments they make about religion 'from a scientific viewpoint'. Perhaps those of a scientific-and-non-religious viewpoint might learn something too by discussing it instead of just accepting it.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Could you suggest better wording for point 1?

Science requires adherence to the scientific method to draw conclusions.

From Wikipedia:

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

• Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
  
• Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
  
• Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
  
• Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
  
• Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
  
• Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

• Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
• Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
• Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Any theory on the existence of mythical beings that does not conform to the scientific method is unscientific.....

[cwes99_03]

I like your qualifying statement at the end. Why did you add it? Can you think of a theory on the existence of non-corporeal beings that does conform to the scientific method?