Religion and Atheism

[Stubby]

Why, by cutting up corpses and looking at them. Like, what happened in the religions middle ages. In the religious universities. By religious people.

Your question, unpacked, as you see, does not make a whiff of sense to me. I ope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to suspect you have a few misconceptions about the middle ages, and scientific history in general. Subscribing to a few myths, as it were.

Also, the part I've bolded is childish. And, since you haven't answered my post with examples as to how science conflicts with religion in your examples, premature.

 

OK, now I have your answer.  Presumably what you wrote meant "by the application of science over hundreds of thousands of man hours of patient research".

Look at this history, taken from the Altius Directory:

 

Dilation and curettage procedures were known in the medical world since ancient times and indeed, some very rudimentary apparatus existed in those days. It was not until the mid nineteenth century however, that this procedure was developed, with the evolution of gynecology as a medical specialization.

The word curettage comes from the French word “curette” which means “to cleanse” and was developed in 1723 in France. In the 1870s, Alfred Hegar, a German Physician invented the dilator and this resulted in the popularization of dilation and curettage as an accepted medical procedure.

 

Science developed this actual procedure as far back as the 1870's.

Yet we still see this sort of thing happening, as a direct result of the application of religious beliefs:

 

The husband of a pregnant woman who died in an Irish hospital has said he has no doubt she would be alive if she had been allowed an abortion.

Praveen Halappanavar said staff at University Hospital Galway told them Ireland was "a Catholic country".

 

This represents a clear-cut case of religion conflicting with science.  Religion caused this woman's death.  No question about it.  Science (medicine) would have saved her life.  Religious beliefs (not her own I might add) would not.  In the real world that represents a conflict -to keep this discussion on topic - that is between religion and science that is neither cosmology nor creationism.  Therefore it is not "fundamentally wrongheaded" to suggest otherwise.

In your own time, move on to attempt to debunk the next example from my list if you like.  Feel free to cite specific examples, as I have done throughout the thread, if you like.

[Altherion]

First bold: And yet I proved otherwise upthread.

You proved nothing of the sort, you merely provided a few examples of widespread beliefs that were wrong. I said more likely, not always and in fact provided a class of examples where this is not the case myself.

Second bold: I will hazard a guess here - I reckon more beliefs with widespread appeal have been proven to be harmful than useful. One only has to look at our current world. Anti-vaxxers?  Undoubtedly harmful.  The 'year one' believers in Cambodia?  Undoubtedly harmful.  Traditional medicine exponents in Asia that lead to the massacre of animals?  Undoubtedly harmful. The middle east is littered with harmful beliefs.  White supremacy? Undoubtedly harmful. I could of course go on, but the point is made.

Again, you've cherry-picked a few that are harmful from an overwhelming majority that are useful. Examples of the latter include beliefs such as "the sun will rise tomorrow morning", "a thrown rock will always fall to the ground or other solid surface" (not actually true, but useful!) and "fire burns wood and reduces it to ash." I could go on (and on and on and on...), but I think you get the point.

Third bold: Perhaps I should qualify what I meant.  I meant that we have no idea at this point in time where science will take us.  Never is a long time. Do you seriously think that people running around in the 1700's would have thought that we would have planes?  Only 40 years ago, the idea that people could wring their hands about beliefs with people all over the world instantaneously would have been preposterous.

This is certainly true. However, having more knowledge also means that we have a better understanding of our limitations and of just how unbelievably huge the universe appears to be. It's not impossible that we'll eventually figure things out, but nature will need to cooperate and, so far, it has not been cooperating at all.

Finally, your link about Godel was incomplete and didn't work.

Grr... the new board doesn't seem to like links with non-standard characters in them. You can Google it if you like.

This represents a clear-cut case of religion conflicting with science.

Absolutely not. Science can give you options and probable outcomes (hopefully with some estimates of the probabilities). It cannot tell you which option to take -- you must provide something else as input. In this case, the additional input was religion and the outcome was the worst of the four possibilities, but there is no conflict at all between religion and science.

[TrueMetis]

If many people believe something, it is more likely to be accurate

This seems like a cart before the horse kind of issue, I would posit that more people believing something doesn't make it more likely to be accurate, but something that is accurate is more likely to be believed by many people.

[Stubby]

 

You proved nothing of the sort, you merely provided a few examples of widespread beliefs that were wrong. I said more likely, not always and in fact provided a class of examples where this is not the case myself.

Again, you've cherry-picked a few that are harmful from an overwhelming majority that are useful. Examples of the latter include beliefs such as "the sun will rise tomorrow morning", "a thrown rock will always fall to the ground or other solid surface" (not actually true, but useful!) and "fire burns wood and reduces it to ash." I could go on (and on and on and on...), but I think you get the point.

This is certainly true. However, having more knowledge also means that we have a better understanding of our limitations and of just how unbelievably huge the universe appears to be. It's not impossible that we'll eventually figure things out, but nature will need to cooperate and, so far, it has not been cooperating at all.

Grr... the new board doesn't seem to like links with non-standard characters in them. You can Google it if you like.

Absolutely not. Science can give you options and probable outcomes (hopefully with some estimates of the probabilities). It cannot tell you which option to take -- you must provide something else as input. In this case, the additional input was religion and the outcome was the worst of the four possibilities, but there is no conflict at all between religion and science.

Firstly, your exact words were:

The trump card is "we believe" where the "we" includes at least on the order of a million people (better if on the order of 100 million or more) and the belief is something that has been passed down for many generations.

Secondly, you again accuse me of cherrypicking.  Of course, as has developed throughout the thread, you will see that I have referred to many other examples.  And I have focused on only a few examples because that was all that was necessary.  Further, please point to where I said that all religious beliefs are harmful.  You are misrepresenting me.  The irony is that if we follow your logic, you are also cherrypicking by only citing a few examples of good beliefs.  I am well-enough versed in the application of logic to recognise that only a few examples are necessary, so I won't hold that against your viewpoint.

However, I will say that your example that the sun will rise tomorrow is not actually an unfounded belief, we have evidence of that fact every day.  And I will point out that people used to believe that sacrificing humans to the sun was required to make it happen.

Finally, I have noted your position on the application of science in the Irish case I cited.  Your logic means that it was somehow better for this woman, who did not share the personal beliefs of the lawmakers, to die to protect the lawmakers' beliefs.  That was a complete conflict between religion and science.  I wan't none of an unfounded belief that has so little respect for other humans.

[Rorshach]

 

OK, now I have your answer.  Presumably what you wrote meant "by the application of science over hundreds of thousands of man hours of patient research".

For someone not really offering much, your tone leaves much to be desired. As "the application of science over hundreds of thousands of man hours of patient research" started with and generally included religious practitioners, I would think a softening of your stance would be in order.

 

This represents a clear-cut case of religion conflicting with science.  Religion caused this woman's death.  No question about it.  Science (medicine) would have saved her life.  Religious beliefs (not her own I might add) would not.  In the real world that represents a conflict -to keep this discussion on topic - that is between religion and science that is neither cosmology nor creationism.  

Therefore it is not "fundamentally wrongheaded" to suggest otherwise.

In your own time, move on to attempt to debunk the next example from my list if you like.  Feel free to cite specific examples, as I have done throughout the thread, if you like.

As it happens, Altherion came to this part before I did. You could do a lot worse than listen to him. Also, while this is certainly a tragic situation, and a quite-too-strict interpretation of the law (as I believe the inquest found), in the argument you try to present this is an anecdote. Arguing by anecdote isn't really going to change people's minds.

[Castel]

 

Absolutely not. Science can give you options and probable outcomes (hopefully with some estimates of the probabilities). Itcannot tell you which option to take -- you must provide something else as input. In this case, the additional input was religion and the outcome was the worst of the four possibilities, but there is no conflict at all between religion and science.

 

Are we still on Hume?  lol.

 

Religion conflicts with science the way philosophy does.

[Stubby]

For someone not really offering much, your tone leaves much to be desired. As "the application of science over hundreds of thousands of man hours of patient research" started with and generally included religious practitioners, I would think a softening of your stance would be in order.

As it happens, Altherion came to this part before I did. You could do a lot worse than listen to him. Also, while this is certainly a tragic situation, and a quite-too-strict interpretation of the law (as I believe the inquest found), in the argument you try to present this is an anecdote. Arguing by anecdote isn't really going to change people's minds.

1.  Only in your world am I not really offering much.  You, for example, haven't linked us to any evidence at all IIRC (except for a misapplied link to an explanation of the "poisoning the well fallacy). Readers will see who is doing the evading here.

2. I don't really care if some of the people doing the research were religious, because they are still scientists.  I never claimed otherwise.  Please do not misrepresent me.

3. Altherion didn't counter anything, as my reply proves above.

4. This is not just an anecdote.  It happens frequently all over the world. 68,000 deaths worldwide (of women) forced into unsafe abortions due to the stigmatisation they suffer at the hands of the religious and powerful men who make these laws to enforce their own personal beliefs is not a fucking anecdote.

5. Your reliance on the "argument by anecdote" issue is nothing more than a dodge.  You know damn well this was an example and not just an anecdote.  But if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means link it. For someone happy to criticise others for not "really offering much" all you have so far is hand waving and avoidance.  Seriously, if you don't see a conflict in the case I cited it is because you do not want to.

Now, instead of more philosophical hand waving and objections to my tone, how about you produce some actual real-world evidence that it is "fundamentally wrongheaded for new atheists to argue that the only conflicts between religion and science are wrt creationism and/or cosmology".

I won't respond to you again until you do.

[Altherion]

 

Firstly, your exact words were:

Yes, I think they're valid -- it's certainly a trump card. Sometimes the belief in question happens to be wrong and then the fact that this is a trump card is not a good thing, but it is one nonetheless.

Finally, I have noted your position on the application of science in the Irish case I cited.  Your logic means that it was somehow better for this woman, who did not share the personal beliefs of the lawmakers, to die to protect the lawmakers' beliefs.  That was a complete conflict between religion and science.  I wan't none of an unfounded belief that has so little respect for other humans.

No. All I'm saying is that there is no conflict between religion and science here. Science can tell you that there are four possible outcomes: mother and child survive, mother survives and child dies, mother dies and child survives or both of them die. It can give you the probabilities of these outcomes. It can tell you how the probability of the mother's survival is altered if the abortion is performed. It can even be more fine-grained and tell you what are the possible health implications for mother and child in the various circumstances.

However, science cannot tell you what to do or even which outcome is preferable. The religiously-motivated decision was that the doctors should attempt to save both mother and child and as a result both of them died. I agree with you that this was a bad outcome, but this statement has nothing to do with science. Science has no way of evaluating moral positions so there is no conflict here between science and religion.

[Rorshach]

1.  Only in your world am I not really offering much.  You, for example, haven't linked us to any evidence at all IIRC (except for a misapplied link to an explanation of the "poisoning the well fallacy). Readers will see who is doing the evading here.

2. I don't really care if some of the people doing the research were religious, because they are still scientists.  I never claimed otherwise.  Please do not misrepresent me.

3. Altherion didn't counter anything, as my reply proves above.

4. This is not just an anecdote.  It happens frequently all over the world. 68,000 deaths worldwide (of women) forced into unsafe abortions due to the stigmatisation they suffer at the hands of the religious and powerful men who make these laws to enforce their own personal beliefs is not a fucking anecdote.

5. Your reliance on the "argument by anecdote" issue is nothing more than a dodge.  You know damn well this was an example and not just an anecdote.  But if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means link it. For someone happy to criticise others for not "really offering much" all you have so far is hand waving and avoidance.  Seriously, if you don't see a conflict in the case I cited it is because you do not want to.

Now, instead of more philosophical hand waving and objections to my tone, how about you produce some actual real-world evidence that it is "fundamentally wrongheaded for new atheists to argue that the only conflicts between religion and science are wrt creationism and/or cosmology".

I won't respond to you again until you do.

1. Asserting that the "poisoning the well"-link was wrongly applied doesn't make it true. I've argued why it fits, and I stand by that. You have, on that count offered nothing.

Also, it would be interesting to see what you count as "evidence". Your number 2 is in its way a dodge, and I might add a rather graceless one, because the history of science is chock full of religious people doing science for religious reasons (showing God's glory etc). If you want some reading, I'd reccomend a starting book.

3. No, your response doesn't "prove" anything. You are, indeed, quite to fond of that word, and misapply it constantly. What you have done is present your reasoning, but that does not in any way, shape or form "prove" that you are right. I happen to have read Altherion's replies as well, and I will contend that you have to read them in ill will to reach the conclusions you have. A reasonable reading would assume, as Altherion writes furter on, that he doesn't argue that if many enough people believe something, it is right. Heck, seeing as he generally doesn't commit to anything for certain, I'll argue that the "cherry-picking"-argument is true - you are ignoring the main thrust of his arguments and his conclusions in order to try to score a cheap point and claim victory.

4. As you know, or should know, you are over-representing your source. While the number of deaths owing to unsafe abortions are way too high, the you cite point out that there are quite a few unsafe abortions happening because of lack of access, in countries where abortion is legal.

5. In a way, I think we are arguing different things. I am arguing that as a general rule, there is no conflict between religion and science (leaving aside the YEC and JW). You seem to be more a literal arguer - that spesific examples and anecdotes will show that there sometimes is a conflict. Seeing as we're leaving YEC and JW behind, I'd argue - like number 3 here - that you are in some way trying to argue against the main thrust of the argument in favour of scoring points.

(Oh, and it is an anecdote in this instance. After all, it happened in a country where abortion in cases like this was allowed under the law - your article deals with other places, where it is outlawed or not available).

[Stubby]

 

Yes, I think they're valid -- it's certainly a trump card. Sometimes the belief in question happens to be wrong and then the fact that this is a trump card is not a good thing, but it is one nonetheless.

No. All I'm saying is that there is no conflict between religion and science here. Science can tell you that there are four possible outcomes: mother and child survive, mother survives and child dies, mother dies and child survives or both of them die. It can give you the probabilities of these outcomes. It can tell you how the probability of the mother's survival is altered if the abortion is performed. It can even be more fine-grained and tell you what are the possible health implications for mother and child in the various circumstances.

However, science cannot tell you what to do or even which outcome is preferable. The religiously-motivated decision was that the doctors should attempt to save both mother and child and as a result both of them died. I agree with you that this was a bad outcome, but this statement has nothing to do with science. Science has no way of evaluating moral positions so there is no conflict here between science and religion.

There is only one valid outcome if religion is removed - especially as the woman in question did not share the religion of the lawmakers - and that is that she survives.

I agree that science cannot tell us about moral (actually we were referring to ethics at the time) values.  I said so above, in response to Jo498.

This woman died because the Irish lawmakers based their laws on religion, in direct contrast to actual facts.  It's a very simple conflict.

[Rorshach]

Are we still on Hume?  lol.

 

Religion conflicts with science the way philosophy does.

Just as an aside, isn't Altherion waaaay to confident of things actually happening causally to hold to Hume?

[Stubby]

1. Asserting that the "poisoning the well"-link was wrongly applied doesn't make it true. I've argued why it fits, and I stand by that. You have, on that count offered nothing.

Also, it would be interesting to see what you count as "evidence". Your number 2 is in its way a dodge, and I might add a rather graceless one, because the history of science is chock full of religious people doing science for religious reasons (showing God's glory etc). If you want some reading, I'd reccomend a starting book.

3. No, your response doesn't "prove" anything. You are, indeed, quite to fond of that word, and misapply it constantly. What you have done is present your reasoning, but that does not in any way, shape or form "prove" that you are right. I happen to have read Altherion's replies as well, and I will contend that you have to read them in ill will to reach the conclusions you have. A reasonable reading would assume, as Altherion writes furter on, that he doesn't argue that if many enough people believe something, it is right. Heck, seeing as he generally doesn't commit to anything for certain, I'll argue that the "cherry-picking"-argument is true - you are ignoring the main thrust of his arguments and his conclusions in order to try to score a cheap point and claim victory.

4. As you know, or should know, you are over-representing your source. While the number of deaths owing to unsafe abortions are way too high, the you cite point out that there are quite a few unsafe abortions happening because of lack of access, in countries where abortion is legal.

5. In a way, I think we are arguing different things. I am arguing that as a general rule, there is no conflict between religion and science (leaving aside the YEC and JW). You seem to be more a literal arguer - that spesific examples and anecdotes will show that there sometimes is a conflict. Seeing as we're leaving YEC and JW behind, I'd argue - like number 3 here - that you are in some way trying to argue against the main thrust of the argument in favour of scoring points.

(Oh, and it is an anecdote in this instance. After all, it happened in a country where abortion in cases like this was allowed under the law - your article deals with other places, where it is outlawed or not available).

I won't respond to you again until you do.

[Rorshach]

I'll just point out that the assertions I responded to were yours, and you haven't really attempted to defend their utility, apart from abortion.

 

[Stubby]

I'll just point out that I told you when you first came into the discussion that I am only on abortion for now.  And I'll also just point out that I had comprehensively addressed blood transfusions (from my list) before you came into it.  

Again you are misrepresenting me.

[TrueMetis]

No. All I'm saying is that there is no conflict between religion and science here. Science can tell you that there are four possible outcomes: mother and child survive, mother survives and child dies, mother dies and child survives or both of them die. It can give you the probabilities of these outcomes. It can tell you how the probability of the mother's survival is altered if the abortion is performed. It can even be more fine-grained and tell you what are the possible health implications for mother and child in the various circumstances.

 

However, science cannot tell you what to do or even which outcome is preferable. The religiously-motivated decision was that the doctors should attempt to save both mother and child and as a result both of them died. I agree with you that this was a bad outcome, but this statement has nothing to do with science. Science has no way of evaluating moral positions so there is no conflict here between science and religion.

 

I would argue the that preferable outcome is the one that is mostly likely to save lives. Say for example if medicine tells us the chances of the child surviving is low, and them both surviving is low, than obviously the preferable outcome is to save the mothers life. To in the face of that say "well we've got to try and save both even though that's the less likely to work" is deeply immoral.

[Altherion]

I would argue the that preferable outcome is the one that is mostly likely to save lives. Say for example if medicine tells us the chances of the child surviving is low, and them both surviving is low, than obviously the preferable outcome is to save the mothers life. To in the face of that say "well we've got to try and save both even though that's the less likely to work" is deeply immoral.

That's fine -- this is your moral position and I think a lot of people would agree with you. My point was that such a position (or the religious one or even some strange ultra-Darwinist morality that would deny both of them medical treatment) has nothing to do with science.

[TrueMetis]

That's fine -- this is your moral position and I think a lot of people would agree with you. My point was that such a position (or the religious one or even some strange ultra-Darwinist morality that would deny both of them medical treatment) has nothing to do with science.

It has a lot to do with science, since I'm using science to inform my morality, which leads to a conflict with religion when people use religion to justify stances I find immoral.

[Altherion]

It has a lot to do with science, since I'm using science to inform my morality, which leads to a conflict with religion when people use religion to justify stances I find immoral.

Sure, but the conflict is between your values and those of religious people, not between religion and science. Science merely helps both you and the religious understand the options and outcomes of the situation.

[IamMe90]

Seriously, there is a lot of conflation between the values of people that adhere to science, and the practice of science itself, going on in this thread. It's mind-boggling to me.

[Lord Mord]

Stubby, 

There is only one valid outcome if religion is removed - especially as the woman in question did not share the religion of the lawmakers - and that is that she survives.

I agree that science cannot tell us about moral (actually we were referring to ethics at the time) values.  I said so above, in response to Jo498.

This woman died because the Irish lawmakers based their laws on religion, in direct contrast to actual facts.  It's a very simple conflict.

This is the same thing you were doing in the transfusion example.  Note: law, in the sense of what should be done, or what must not be permitted cannot be based on "actual facts".  At some point, a value judgment must enter into the equation.

If the law valued the life of the mother  more greatly, the law would still not be based on fact; it would be based on a different values alignment.

I don't know if it's fair to call all values judgments akin to religious positions, but they are closer to that than they are to facts, as such.  Ergo, when a religiously-based law reaches a different conclusion than you about the best desired outcome, no matter how many facts you state about what science can do or prove, you are not proving that religion conflicts with science.  You are proving only that a given religion's values conflict with yours.

Unless you are positing that moral positions can themselves be scientifically proven good or bad?