Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

@ughaibu,

I agree that you can't prove that God exists, however I am interested that you find the claim that you can so offensive.

I believe neither the existence nor non-existence of God can be proven, because God is a 'transcendent being', God is 'beyond existence' and not the kind of thing of which either existence or non-existence can be asserted.

So I will go back to what I said before, which is, you can't prove that God exists, but you can prove your faith in God by the life you live.

As far as the relation of faith and science, at other times in history, these have been understood to be two aspects of an harmonious whole. However many people in the modern world believe they are opposed to each other.

2 Replies

It seems to me that people have gained the wrong concept of what a god should or should not be.

Mother Nature is in my opinion a beter concept.

If you can accept the concept of Mother Nature in place of organised religions gods then science and religion can be mutually relvant.

maybe the druids have/had it close to right

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

I believe neither the existence nor non-existence of God can be proven, because God is a 'transcendent being', God is 'beyond existence' and not the kind of thing of which either existence or non-existence can be asserted.

Wouldn't God be "pure existence" since God is eternal and omnipresent?

jeeprs wrote:

As far as the relation of faith and science, at other times in history, these have been understood to be two aspects of an harmonious whole. However many people in the modern world believe they are opposed to each other.

The people in the modern who believe science and religion are opposed, only believe so because in most cases it is they themselves who are opposed to either religion or science.

1 Reply

@neapolitan,

Quote:

Wouldn't God be "pure existence" since God is eternal and omnipresent?

Everything that exists is compound and has a beginning and an end in time. The traditional understanding of Deity is more like 'the source of being', 'the ground of being', or, 'that by virtue of which everything exists'. So I think there is a difference between 'being' and 'existence'. This is a contentious distinction which many will not recognize.

Quote:

The people in the modern who believe science and religion are opposed, only believe so because in most cases it is they themselves who are opposed to either religion or science.

I agree with you.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

I agree that you can't prove that God exists, however I am interested that you find the claim that you can so offensive.

Gods are imaginary, for everyone, atheist and theist alike, so, if somebody tells me that "god isn't just something you believe--he exists", then that person is telling me that my reality is a subset of their imagination. I'm surprised that people dont find this offensive.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

The nature of the existence or reality of God or Gods is of course a supremely difficult question, however I do not accept that they are wholly imaginary, on the basis that their characteristics and attributes have been described across history and culture by many esteemed persons.

The idea that they are imaginary is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But I don't agree with it.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

The idea that they are imaginary is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But I don't agree with it.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact, and disagreeing with facts is not rational behaviour. If gods are something other than imaginary, show me one.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

If the Gods were real, what makes you think they would wish to reveal themselves to you? Who are you, to make such demands? Anyway, this is a pointless argument. Believe whatever you wish, it makes no difference to me.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

If the Gods were real, what makes you think they would wish to reveal themselves to you? Who are you, to make such demands?

I guess this is your way of admitting that you can not show me any god, neither can you in any way demonstrate the existence of any god, and this leaves the status of gods as imaginary. Further, gods are either irreducibly imaginary or irrelevant, because if a relevant god can be shown to exist, then, like all other relevant things in the natural world, it will lack divinity and interactive experimentalists will figure out how to exploit it, if it is exploitable, and if it is not exploitable, then it is worthless as a god.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

I thought you also say that numbers are imaginary? Are numbers imaginary in the same way that gods are? If numbers don't correspond to anything real, as you continually insist, then why are numbers any more or less real than Gods?

Furthermore, the Gods are not like tokens of argument or stock certificates. One should approach such topics with diffidence.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

jeeprs wrote:
If the Gods were real, what makes you think they would wish to reveal themselves to you? Who are you, to make such demands?
I guess this is your way of admitting that you can not show me any god, neither can you in any way demonstrate the existence of any god, and this leaves the status of gods as imaginary.

But that is a non sequitur. It certainly does not follow from the premise that it is impossible to prove that something exists, that that something does not exist. Why would you think that it does? Suppose it turns out that it is impossible to prove that ETs exist. How would that show that there are no ETs? Your fallacy is called, the argument from ignorance.

1 Reply

thankyou Kennethamy, even though I suspect that shortly, whatever argument I proffer will also be subject to the same forensic deconstruction.

I was going to add, however, that the kinds of ideas which one is willing to consider depend very much on one's preconceptions. If I were to suggest the existence of something which 'sounded scientific', such as a new type of particle theory, or theory of physical matter, many people would be willing to consider the idea, even if it were completely outlandish, because it 'sounds scientific'. Whereas if I were to offer any kind of argument about 'incorporeal beings', most would not be prepared to consider it, mainly because it 'sounds religious'. We remain to some extent, subject to some basic outlook - in my case it is often unfashionably metaphysical.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

thankyou Kennethamy, even though I suspect that shortly, whatever argument I proffer will also be subject to the same forensic deconstruction.

I was going to add, however, that the kinds of ideas which one is willing to consider depend very much on one's preconceptions. If I were to suggest the existence of something which 'sounded scientific', such as a new type of particle theory, or theory of physical matter, many people would be willing to consider the idea, even if it were completely outlandish, because it 'sounds scientific'. Whereas if I were to offer any kind of argument about 'incorporeal beings', most would not be prepared to consider it, mainly because it 'sounds religious'. We remain to some extent, subject to some basic outlook - in my case it is often unfashionably metaphysical.

What deconstruction? I am only pointing out that U. committed a standard fallacy. His argument is unsound. If you make an unsound argument, and I detect it, I expect to point it out too. It does not matter what the argument is about. Logic is an equal opportunity critic.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
this leaves the status of gods as imaginary.
It certainly does not follow from the premise that it is impossible to prove that something exists, that that something does not exist.

But I didn't make a claim about existence, did I? I pointed out that gods are imaginary, didn't I? Are gods imaginary, yes or no?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

how is that question to be adjudicated? To whom shall we turn for definitive judgment?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

how is that question to be adjudicated? To whom shall we turn for definitive judgment?

We ourselves can answer the question by observation. Is it the case that gods are imagined, by atheists and theists alike? The answer is "yes".
Is it the case that there is something in the world that can be pointed to by any person and it be accepted by all healthy people that that thing is god? The answer is "no".
Therefore gods are imaginary.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

Is it the case that gods are imagined, by atheists and theists alike? The answer is "yes".

But you are not a theist, therefore you cannot imagine what it would be like for a theist. This is something that, by definition, only an atheist would say. And I say, you are wrong.

Some of those who believe say that they have realised the beatific vision. This is well attested and documented by many persons of good repute. Yet you will assert that all their claims are false.

Now who is to adjudicate?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
Is it the case that gods are imagined, by atheists and theists alike? The answer is "yes".
Some of those who believe say that they have realised the beatific vision.

Is this an event that takes place in the imagination or is it not? If it is not, show me the photographs.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

jeeprs wrote:
Quote:
Is it the case that gods are imagined, by atheists and theists alike? The answer is "yes".
Some of those who believe say that they have realised the beatific vision.
Is this an event that takes place in the imagination or is it not? If it is not, show me the photographs.

Do you also demand to see the photographs of Einstein's conceiving of relativity theory, or of Picasso's conceiving to his paintings?

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

jeeprs wrote:
how is that question to be adjudicated? To whom shall we turn for definitive judgment?
We ourselves can answer the question by observation. Is it the case that gods are imagined, by atheists and theists alike? The answer is "yes".
Is it the case that there is something in the world that can be pointed to by any person and it be accepted by all healthy people that that thing is god? The answer is "no".
Therefore gods are imaginary.

It does not follow from the premise that X is imagined, that X is imaginary. I can imagine an elephant, but elephants are not imaginary.

2 Replies

Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know