Religion is science?

[Willum]

As we find out more, we refine our theories, I think this is agreeable.

So let's roll back the clock.
Isn't it reasonable the first scientific theories were that a father-like figure created lightning and made the crops grow?
That guided our fortunes,just like when we were children?

Then as we learn more, we need to explain less with mommy and daddy gods? and more and more with fundamental particles and evolution?

Aren't gods just a psychologically driven scientific model to describe non-psychological phenomenon?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 39 by Guy Threepwood]

and 'pseudoscience' is exactly what most scientists particularly atheists at the time, labelled it.

But what is the consensus NOW? When the tectonic plate movement hypothesis was first proposed no one thought that was real science either, and there are countless more examples of this kind of thing where a hypothesis is initially thought to be nuts, but over time and through observation and experiment the hypothesis becomes a theory, or is proven false, or remains an open problem.

Of course there being a beginning to the universe complies with Genesis better than a static one- that does not prove everything in Genesis to be true, just that we have to follow the evidence where it leads, not away from it- simply because we don't like the 'theistic implications' of something.

How can you make any correlation whatsoever between the creation myth of Genesis, and the Big Bang hypothesis, other than that they both describe the "start" of something? That is virtually all they have in common, but you could make that same comparison to essentially thing that has a start. Genesis describes a god being just poofing things into existence from nothing. The Big Bang is an extrapolation based on observations of an expanding universe, and current physics which it is generally consistent with. Both are hypotheses, but one has virtually zero observational evidence to support it (Genesis) while the other at least is based on a rational process involving observation and modern physics.

Again not just 'one person's opinion' Hoyle, Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan, Hawking and many more- all explicitly link(ed) their positions with their ideological materialist beliefs- creating a constant battle between scientific progress and atheist preferences.

i.e. it's not just that their theories were wrong, but WHY they were wrong, they were founded on preferences for particular conclusions rather than the evidence itself.

Are you claiming that Darwin's theory of evolution was wrong? It has been validated far too many times to make that claim. But real science is not based on someone's preferences for conclusions. This may drive their experimental ideas or approaches, or paths taken for theoretical studies, but at the end of the day the decision on whether a scientific issue is "right" or "wrong" is based on the results of the experiments, or the correctness of the mathematics, etc. It makes no difference whatsoever what their preferences were, or what their religious beliefs were, etc. The end result has no dependence on any of these things.

that the universe did in fact begin with a specific creation event

Are you now claiming that the Big Bang Hypothesis is a fact? If it is proven to be a correct hypothesis and advances to a formal theory, then that doesn't make it a "creation event." It is a giant stretch to equate the Big Bang with the biblical creation event (or any of the many other similar religious creation events ... they all seem to have one), just because they both describe the start of something. Why isn't the formation of our sun about 4.6 billion years ago the biblical creation event? Are all events that have a start the biblical creation event?

Also that the Earth was once one vast ocean, and then one vast land mass and one ocean, that life began in the ocean and culminated with mankind... all lucky guesses also perhaps?

We know generally how all this happened ... with far more confidence than we know how the universe began. And it doesn't jive, at all, with the Genesis creation events. Just look at the order of the biblical creation events compared to what we know did happen. The sun wasn't "created", according to Genesis, until about half way through the week. So god somehow created day and night on day 1 before there was a sun or an earth, "heaven" on day 2, the earth, seas and plants on day 3, the sun, moon and stars on day 4, fishes and birds on day 5, and land animals including man on day 6. This is the order from the first version of the creation myth (Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, the Elohim version). There is a somewhat different order in Genesis 2:4-25 (the YHVH version). But both are inconsistent with reality both in their details, and in the time that they supposedly happened which of course varies wildly depending on which Christian apologist is trying to support the outlandish story.

It is amazing to me that people living in the 21st century still cling to these creation myths (any of them from any religion) as if they were more than myth and allegory from the pre-science days of man.

[Guy Threepwood]

So that's the fundamental problem with atheism here- how does a person separate a personal belief, that he stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge as such?

How is this a fundamental problem with atheism though? We are quite open minded, it's much easier for us to separate our beliefs from our scientific conclusions and follow the evidence wherever it leads, as our identity isn't tied to a particular religion.

We all have beliefs, setting them aside and being truly objective is difficult enough right?

To separate a belief though, you have to first recognize it as one. Many atheists explicitly insist that their position is merely a 'lack of belief' i.e. a 'default truth'- requiring no explanation itself- a.k.a superstition!

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 40 by DrNoGods]

But what is the consensus NOW? When the tectonic plate movement hypothesis was first proposed no one thought that was real science either, and there are countless more examples of this kind of thing where a hypothesis is initially thought to be nuts, but over time and through observation and experiment the hypothesis becomes a theory, or is proven false, or remains an open problem.

Very true, likewise the laws of classical physics were long declared 'immutable'. While notions of mysterious underlying guiding forces were likewise 'supernatural pseudoscience' before QM- as Max Planck said, science does not progress by changing the minds of scientists, you have to wait for new ones to grow up open to the new ideas. Another reason Hoyle is the perfect example of this, he refused to accept the BB till his dying day.

Science is wonderful, and I agree it does win out in the end ultimately by virtue of the truth, over the vagaries of academic fashion; ideologies like atheism, materialism, naturalism

How can you make any correlation whatsoever between the creation myth of Genesis, and the Big Bang hypothesis, other than that they both describe the "start" of something? That is virtually all they have in common, but you could make that same comparison to essentially thing that has a start. Genesis describes a god being just poofing things into existence from nothing.

and yet that's exactly what atheists overwhelmingly did, because a beginning WAS so theistic in it's implication to them, certainly compared with their 'no creation = no creator' preferences- this is all by their arguments, not mine.

Having said that, it's not just a beginning- 'let there be light' describes an early universe dominated by photons, - the universe unfolding 'as a tent or curtain, to provide a place to live' describes, very elegantly, expansion and lower dimensions unfolding to create higher ones. Static models explicitly boasted of circumventing all of these 'problems'

Are you claiming that Darwin's theory of evolution was wrong? It has been validated far too many times to make that claim. But real science is not based on someone's preferences for conclusions. This may drive their experimental ideas or approaches, or paths taken for theoretical studies, but at the end of the day the decision on whether a scientific issue is "right" or "wrong" is based on the results of the experiments, or the correctness of the mathematics, etc. It makes no difference whatsoever what their preferences were, or what their religious beliefs were, etc. The end result has no dependence on any of these things.

Yes, I am certainly claiming it is (most probably!), utterly & fundamentally wrong, and for the reasons you state . Darwinism was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics in it's Victorian age, and fails for pretty much the same reasons (I would submit to you..)

whether a scientific issue is "right" or "wrong" is based on the results of the experiments, or the correctness of the mathematics, etc. It makes no difference whatsoever what their preferences were, or what their religious beliefs were, etc. The end result has no dependence on any of these things.

and what are the results? that's where things get a little tricky..

'[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact': Mark Twain

It is a giant stretch to equate the Big Bang with the biblical creation event

once more we agree, my point was that it was the academic atheists/materialists who overwhelmingly and explicitly equated the two, and rejected the notion of a creation event as 'pseudoscience' for that very reason. And that this is a persistent error. Any skepticism of Darwinism today is likewise largely dismissed in almost verbatim terms as atheists dismissed skepticism of static models- ie. alternatives need not be considered at all, because they are 'unscientific'!

So I don't really care if something is 'scientific', I care more about whether it's actually true, don't you?

I don't see the conclusion as the guiding light here, the evidence on life points elsewhere to me, even if it might be perceived as implying a creator... I personally have no particular bias against a theistic implication...

are you conceding that you do?
& is having such a bias consistent with the scientific method?
& how fruitful has that bias proven to be in the past?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 42 by Guy Threepwood]

and yet that's exactly what atheists overwhelmingly did, because a beginning WAS so theistic in it's implication to them, certainly compared with their 'no creation = no creator' preferences- this is all by their arguments, not mine.

All atheists? You seem to be lumping all atheists into one belief about the BB vs. static universe, without any comments about non-atheists. I expect there was a pretty even split in opinions early on because a scientific hypothesis like the BB has absolutely zero dependence on anyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), as far as it being worthy of pursuit as to its validity. The question of how BB relates to the existence of a "creator" is irrelevant to the actual mechanism itself ... that is a physics issue.

Having said that, it's not just a beginning- 'let there be light' describes an early universe dominated by photons, - the universe unfolding 'as a tent or curtain, to provide a place to live' describes, very elegantly, expansion and lower dimensions unfolding to create higher ones. Static models explicitly boasted of circumventing all of these 'problems'

Again, early hypotheses of static vs. dynamic universe have nothing at all to do with scientific reality. If static models turned out to be wrong then so what? This doesn't confirm or otherwise support some biblical creation myth written over 2000 years ago when the scientific knowledge of humankind was next to nothing. Are you seriously trying to equate a perceived holy book's comment "let there be light", describing a god being pronouncing his creation of light, with the current early universe model of modern physics? That is a stretch to say the least!

Yes, I am certainly claiming it is (most probably!), utterly & fundamentally wrong, and for the reasons you state . Darwinism was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics in it's Victorian age, and fails for pretty much the same reasons (I would submit to you..)

What! Darwin's ToE is a logical extension of classical physics? What connection is there between classical physics and ToE? Did you mean "classical biology"?

'[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact': Mark Twain

And what importance should we attribute to the comments of a writer of fiction about science? I prefer my signature block quote from Mark Twain ... much more relevant than anything he may have said about science.

And that this is a persistent error. Any skepticism of Darwinism today is likewise largely dismissed in almost verbatim terms as atheists dismissed skepticism of static models- ie. alternatives need not be considered at all, because they are 'unscientific'!

Opinions are meaningless. Either a hypothesis is supported by evidence or it is not. Darwinism has been supported, overwhelmingly, by evidence and skeptics have no (evolved) leg to stand on.

So I don't really care if something is 'scientific', I care more about whether it's actually true, don't you?

Yes ... that is why I accept things like Darwinian evolution, while rejecting things like ancient creation myths and other unsupported (by evidence of any kind) propositions like human afterlives, the existence of things like gods and devils and the like. Much easier to deal with these issues if those without any supporting evidence are back-burnered until that situation changes.

are you conceding that you do?
& is having such a bias consistent with the scientific method?
& how fruitful has that bias proven to be in the past?

I don't have a bias against a theistic implication, I just don't see any evidence of any kind that would suggest that this should be considered as viable. Supernatural beings of any kind have never been shown to exist ... ever. The scientific method says to take the hypothesis that such beings may exist (ie. "gods" as per theism), then investigate via experiment, observation and analysis whether or not the hypothesis is supported. When it comes to gods, afterlives, etc. this process has yet to produce any supporting evidence or reason to believe that the hypothesis is correct. So until the process does bear some fruit, I'll continue to believe that gods and devils, afterlives, creation myths, etc. are pure fiction.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 43 by DrNoGods]

All atheists? You seem to be lumping all atheists into one belief about the BB vs. static universe, without any comments about non-atheists. I expect there was a pretty even split in opinions early on because a scientific hypothesis like the BB has absolutely zero dependence on anyone's religious beliefs

(from Wikipedia)

"In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory'

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"'

^ rejection on ideological grounds was a major factor, no way around this. Hoyle himself was just one man yes, but the fact that it was HIS his pejorative term 'Big Bang' that stuck, along with his preferred alternative theories, highlights the problem we are talking about, the bias opinion of a minority of 'scientists' versus the scientific method

Darwin's ToE is a logical extension of classical physics? What connection is there between classical physics and ToE?

That was the Victorian age model of reality ToE was born into;

Whereby a handful of simple, intuitive & 'immutable' laws, given enough time and space to randomly bump around in- were bound to produce jolly interesting results eventually! no underlying mysterious guiding instructions required- that was still considered 'supernatural nonsense' back then

Darwin very logically proposed that life might have developed by the same general mechanism as the physics and chemistry that preceded it. So I agree with his premise, only today in the 21st C, that means by a vast array of very detailed, finely tuned instructions, information systems, predetermining quite precisely, how, where and when things develop.

So you see the pattern here, steady state to big bang, classical physics to QM, the simple reductionist materialist theory progresses to the more sophisticated complex reality. And you and I agree, that if, to some scientists, the former theory happens to appear friendlier to atheism, and the latter to theism, that should not hinder scientific progress

Darwinism is the next card which is in the process of being flipped, similarly against the overwhelming tide of atheist-academic consensus and to similar loud cries of 'supernatural!' and 'pseudoscience!'

Opinions are meaningless. Either a hypothesis is supported by evidence or it is not. Darwinism has been supported, overwhelmingly, by evidence and skeptics have no (evolved) leg to stand on.

So what do you personally see as overwhelming evidence, leaving aside opinions of scientists?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 44 by Guy Threepwood]

So what do you personally see as overwhelming evidence, leaving aside opinions of scientists?

The vast amount of cumulative physical evidence in the fossil record and in the genetics work of the past 4 decades. Just look at human evolution as one example. Wikipedia summarize the major aspects of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

with 217 references along with further references to books and other sources, which is all just a small sample of the total data available on the subject. This is not all just scientist's opinions on the series of steps from bipedal apes 6M years ago (or so) to modern humans. We have sequenced the full genome of several Neandertals, and there are many summary articles like this one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275894/

The cumulative physical evidence is just too convincing to not arrive at the consensus that modern humans did in fact evolve from earlier great ape ancestors. And of course many other animal genomes have been sequenced and used with the fossil record to add more pieces to the overall phylogenetic tree of life that continues to be updated based on studies of the fossil record and genetics studies, which are for the most part consistent with each other. Just too much physical evidence to ignore, and plenty enough to support the basic evolutionary picture first proposed by Darwin.

And, fortunately, there is certainly no indication that the ToE is "being flipped" in favor of theistic explanations. The other examples you gave of a steady state universe vs. the newer Big Bang model, or classical physics vs. QM are not even remotely analogous. In those cases it was additional observations feeding ever improving models that led to a better understanding of nature, and so more accurate models and new theories. It wasn't possible for people to have ideas on how spectral lines originated and why they showed the specific patterns that did (which played a large role in motivating early QM work) until there were spectrometers capable of sufficient resolution to show these patterns. As new information becomes available, theories are refined and modified accordingly, and some must be abandoned (eg. the heliocentric model of the solar system replaced the theistic, earth-centric one despite initial heavy opposition by the religious crowd).

Darwinism has been modified in various details since Darwin's day via the same process (new fossils, new genetic work, etc.), but no competing process has yet been found to supplant it, and certainly not theist creation myths.

[Bust Nak]

We all have beliefs, setting them aside and being truly objective is difficult enough right?

Not for me it isn't.

To separate a belief though, you have to first recognize it as one. Many atheists explicitly insist that their position is merely a 'lack of belief' i.e. a 'default truth'- requiring no explanation itself- a.k.a superstition!

That sounds like a belief to me. The default position does not need explanation, you need reason to move beyond the default. Why would you believe that to be a superstition?

[Guy Threepwood]

We all have beliefs, setting them aside and being truly objective is difficult enough right?

Not for me it isn't.

To separate a belief though, you have to first recognize it as one. Many atheists explicitly insist that their position is merely a 'lack of belief' i.e. a 'default truth'- requiring no explanation itself- a.k.a superstition!

That sounds like a belief to me. The default position does not need explanation, you need reason to move beyond the default. Why would you believe that to be a superstition?

Exactly- you make my point clearly. Declaring a belief the 'default truth' without need of explanation, applies to not walking under a ladder.- blind faith.

I could frame my belief in exactly the same way if I wanted to:

As an 'a-naturalist', I make no positive assertions about the nature of the universe, I simply refuse to believe in naturalistic explanations (reverting to the obvious default meanwhile)

i.e. claiming a belief a 'default truth' does not change the belief, it only attempts to shift the burden of proof away from itself, avoid having to defend it, why would you want to do that?

[Bust Nak]

Exactly- you make my point clearly. Declaring a belief the 'default truth' without need of explanation, applies to not walking under a ladder.- blind faith.

Merely not walking under a ladder or avoiding walking under ladders? That's the difference between default and moving beyond the default.

As an 'a-naturalist'...

But you are not just an 'a-naturalist' though, are you? Had you merely been an 'a-naturalist' where you make zero positive assertions about the nature of the universe, simply not having a belief in naturalistic explanations then it would be the default and would be perfectly fine, then you would have no burden to fulfill.

i.e. claiming a belief a 'default truth' does not change the belief, it only attempts to shift the burden of proof away from itself, avoid having to defend it, why would you want to do that?

You tell me. I don't want to shift the burden of proof. I am a proper naturalist, I make positive assertions about the nature of the universe, and back them up with naturalistic explanations.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 44 by Guy Threepwood]

So what do you personally see as overwhelming evidence, leaving aside opinions of scientists?

The vast amount of cumulative physical evidence in the fossil record and in the genetics work of the past 4 decades. Just look at human evolution as one example. Wikipedia summarize the major aspects of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

with 217 references along with further references to books and other sources, which is all just a small sample of the total data available on the subject. This is not all just scientist's opinions on the series of steps from bipedal apes 6M years ago (or so) to modern humans. We have sequenced the full genome of several Neandertals, and there are many summary articles like this one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275894/

The cumulative physical evidence is just too convincing to not arrive at the consensus that modern humans did in fact evolve from earlier great ape ancestors. And of course many other animal genomes have been sequenced and used with the fossil record to add more pieces to the overall phylogenetic tree of life that continues to be updated based on studies of the fossil record and genetics studies, which are for the most part consistent with each other. Just too much physical evidence to ignore, and plenty enough to support the basic evolutionary picture first proposed by Darwin.

The 19thC 'basic evolutionary picture first proposed' predicted a smooth incremental process of macro evolution driven by natural selection acting on random variation, producing branches forming a tree as you note

the 21st C evidence shows explosive events like the Cambrian were not 'artifacts of an incomplete record' but real reflections of an extremely staccato natural history.

Where new species appear abruptly in the record, remain in virtual stasis, sometimes for hundreds of millions of years, and/or vanish. leaving behind straight lines rather than branches, with the points of branching/diversion remaining extremely elusive

And even within the straight lines, any gradual evolution at all is very difficult to find. The changes we do see are generally devolution and extinction events. Nobody debates how things disappear, die off..

Neanderthals are a good example- what did they evolve into? what did they come from? we used to have an assumed common ancestor, which was debunked and pushed back into the mists of time, and we see this pattern emerging over and over again.

And for that matter, what were they other than human? we apparently interbred- which would normally classify them in the same species as us, unless someone wanted to make exceptions to look like something more 'Darwiny' was going on there!

Darwin's book was not called 'origin of subspecies' or 'how species go extinct' the real question remains unanswered, what is the origin of the species?

What would you say is the best example of evolution ever actually occurring, that was actually scientifically observed?