Religion and Atheism

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I'm not sure it's an assumption at all. I merely posited that a hypothetical entity we know practically nothing about (and that is probably beyond our comprehension) can have a certain property. Is there some reason it cannot?

Because the universe is really strange. I would completely agree with you if it consisted of randomly distributed energy and nothing else, but it has various kinds of structure across dozens of orders of magnitude in scale. It's true that order can arise from chaos (albeit at the cost of exergy), but IMHO people don't appreciate just how weird that is. It's not something that would be true no matter what (or at least not in the way that we understand it). If you tried to write down the rules for universes similar to ours, most of the time you would not get this structure -- depending on how you deviated from our physics, there might not be galaxies or stars or even atoms.

Of course, this is not really conclusive proof of a creator's existence; you can work around it by introducing an infinite ensemble of universes and then argue that we're in ours because if it was too different from ours, we could not exist. However, arguments of this nature have their own problems and I find them less persuasive than those positing an intelligent being or something else altogether (e.g. a simulated reality).

The problem with the creator explanation is that the only known case of intelligence; the animal brain, required a universe as complex as our own to come into existence, and is itself very complex, so to say that an intelligent creator can help explain complexity in our universe just makes the problem infinitely worse.

Of course it does seem unlikely that the fundamental forces and the physical constants would work exactly in the way that they do. Indeed it might be said that it is infinitely unlikely.

I heard a good analogy for probability in this context a few years ago, if you take a stone and look at the atoms inside it and consider that those atoms could be anywhere, but they all formed in that stone in that specific layout, then you would see that the existence of the stone can be classified as infinitely unlikely. However that doesn't make the stone miraculous, those molecules had to be arranged somehow, and since there are so many options each individual option is infinitely unlikely.

In much the same way, the laws of nature have to exist in some form, each set of imaginable laws may be infinitely unlikely, but one of them has to exist, and it may well be very likely that any possible laws of physics that can exist would allow for complex structures to form.

[Seli]

That, I believe, has to do with another question that science cannot conclusively answer: what constitutes a life. 

Not really, just because there are no clear boundaries there are sensible shorthands. Most of the definitions currently in use for legal approaches are based on the scientific approach; eg in declaring people dead (for purposes of organ transplantation or termination of medical life support), and for abortion limits in many countries.

It does have to do with who has rights, and who doesn't. Which is not a subject of the hard sciences, but where social sciences have important points to make.

[Rorshach]

Not really, just because there are no clear boundaries there are sensible shorthands. Most of the definitions currently in use for legal approaches are based on the scientific approach; eg in declaring people dead (for purposes of organ transplantation or termination of medical life support), and for abortion limits in many countries.

It does have to do with who has rights, and who doesn't. Which is not a subject of the hard sciences, but where social sciences have important points to make.

In this case, the bolded is the relevant part (i believe, anyway). And if I'm not sorely mistaken, the definition isn't related to what makes a life in and of itself, but to whether a foetus is "saveable", that is, can be kept alive outside of the womb. However, as a demarcation this is a moving target, and furthermore (as Peter Singer noted in the quote Ser Scot provided) comes with the inherent contradiction that a foetus can be alive in, say, Ireland, but not in New Guinea. 

Since, then, it is not based on a fact, it doesn't support Stubby's argument. 

Your second paragraph I have no objections to. It doesn't, however, relate to the question I'm debating here. If you disagree, please elaborate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

That, I believe, has to do with another question that science cannot conclusively answer: what constitutes a life. 

And religion can?

[Rorshach]

And religion can?

I don't think you've quite understood what I argue. This, in relation to my argument, is a complete non-sequiteur. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I don't think you've quite understood what I argue. This, in relation to my argument, is a complete non-sequiteur. 

When you argue the limitations of science in science verse religion debate you are, intentionally or unintentionally, implying that religion can.

Life is best understood, IMO, through philosophy.

[Rorshach]

When you argue the limitations of science in science verse religion debate you are, intentionally or unintentionally, implying that religion can.

Life is best understood, IMO, through philosophy.

You are misrepresenting the debate. The question isn't science vs, religion, it is "is there a conflict between science and religion?" 

Different things.

As for your second paragraph, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Seli]

In this case, the bolded is the relevant part (i believe, anyway). And if I'm not sorely mistaken, the definition isn't related to what makes a life in and of itself, but to whether a foetus is "saveable", that is, can be kept alive outside of the womb. However, as a demarcation this is a moving target, and furthermore (as Peter Singer noted in the quote Ser Scot provided) comes with the inherent contradiction that a foetus can be alive in, say, Ireland, but not in New Guinea. 

Since, then, it is not based on a fact, it doesn't support Stubby's argument. 

Your second paragraph I have no objections to. It doesn't, however, relate to the question I'm debating here. If you disagree, please elaborate.

That is at the end where there also hard limits by the way, not only mere practical limitations. And there is a period at the beginning of a pregnancy, where legislation often doesn't consider treatment an abortion proper due to scientific definitions of the development stage at that point in time.

The second part has everything to do with this discussion. In many traditional, and religious moral systems women basically lack rights. Their rights are ignored over those of fathers, husbands, brothers, etc. Which does play a role in abortion restriction, where the rights of women to defend themselves and their lives are curtailed. The social sciences, together with practical improvements in our lives, can show why that traditional approach does not make any sense in our modern world. Another way where religion and sciences clash.

[Rorshach]

That is at the end where there also hard limits by the way, not only mere practical limitations. And there is a period at the beginning of a pregnancy, where legislation often doesn't consider treatment an abortion proper due to scientific definitions of the development stage at that point in time.

The second part has everything to do with this discussion. In many traditional, and religious moral systems women basically lack rights. Their rights are ignored over those of fathers, husbands, brothers, etc. Which does play a role in abortion restriction, where the rights of women to defend themselves and their lives are curtailed. The social sciences, together with practical improvements in our lives, can show why that traditional approach does not make any sense in our modern world. Another way where religion and sciences clash.

Which hard limits are we talking about here? Are these limits something that can be used as a general definition of when life begins? 

As for the bolded, this again runs into the problem above. You may not agree with their values, I may not agree with their values, but are we then arguing from science, or from something else? My impression is we tend to start from our values - socially defined, and not scientifically informed (in the strict sense), and that such we don't see a conflict between religion and science. Between religion and sciences - that is another matter.

 

[Altherion]

The problem with the creator explanation is that the only known case of intelligence; the animal brain, required a universe as complex as our own to come into existence, and is itself very complex, so to say that an intelligent creator can help explain complexity in our universe just makes the problem infinitely worse.

You are presupposing one possible conclusion of a different argument. Namely, is the physical brain the one and only source of consciousness or is it merely the means by which we interact with this world? Not everybody agrees with the monists.

Of course it does seem unlikely that the fundamental forces and the physical constants would work exactly in the way that they do. Indeed it might be said that it is infinitely unlikely.

I heard a good analogy for probability in this context a few years ago, if you take a stone and look at the atoms inside it and consider that those atoms could be anywhere, but they all formed in that stone in that specific layout, then you would see that the existence of the stone can be classified as infinitely unlikely. However that doesn't make the stone miraculous, those molecules had to be arranged somehow, and since there are so many options each individual option is infinitely unlikely.

In much the same way, the laws of nature have to exist in some form, each set of imaginable laws may be infinitely unlikely, but one of them has to exist, and it may well be very likely that any possible laws of physics that can exist would allow for complex structures to form.

You can apply this argument to practically anything strange or unusual and you will probably be wrong. Planets occasionally appear to go backwards in when circling the Earth? Well, they had to move somehow so this is how they move. This is not a useful way to think of things -- the planets appear to go backwards because they're actually in elliptical orbits around the Sun rather than the Earth and the configuration of your stone can, in principle, be traced back through the eons of erosion and deposition to the formation of the Earth and the solar nebula before that (i.e. its atoms could not just be anywhere). Strange and unlikely phenomena are our best guide to areas where our understanding is limited or flawed.

[karaddin]

Karradin,

A child is dependent upon their parents for virtually everything.  An adult is not as such physical coercion is much more difficult for parents as toman adult child.  This does not mean an adult cannot have pressure put on them by family and friends however the level of physical coersion that is possible is lower for an adult than a child, in my opinion.

You didn't even specify physical coercion in the post I quoted, but would you consider being evicted from your home and being rendered homeless to be physical coercion? Limiting things to just physical is awfully shortsighted anyway, even when an accepting family it can be hard to be open about who you are, there is most certainly coercion in the type of family that engages in what stubby was talking about, and if they can it would include physical.

[A wilding]

 

According to the inquest report (as reported by generally every news outlet I could find), the reason for mrs. Halappanavar's death was "medical misadventure", and from what I can read and understand, there were a number of things gone wrong on the way leading to her demise. These wrongs, however, were not religiously motivated - they were human errors. 

If these errors had not occured, mrs. Halappanavar could - and I believe would - get the termination of her pregnancy. After all, the law in Ireland at the time did allow termination if the mother's life was in jeopardy. That was deemed not to be the case by the hospital - wrongly, as it turns out - but it was still the judgement made, based on the scientific evidence obtained. 

It is a little more complex than that though.

It is widely agreed that the doctors' decision not to carry out the abortion was influenced by religious pressure groups, particularly the one called "Precious Life", which had an explicit widely declared intention of ensuring that any doctor who performed an abortion where the circumstances were even slightly doubtful would be prosecuted and would have their career destroyed.

One of the key recommendations of the inquest was to change the law about when abortions could be performed to "remove doubt and fear amongst doctors".

 

[Rorshach]

It is a little more complex than that though.

It is widely agreed that the doctors' decision not to carry out the abortion was influenced by religious pressure groups, particularly the one called "Precious Life", which had an explicit widely declared intention of ensuring that any doctor who performed an abortion where the circumstances were even slightly doubtful would be prosecuted and would have their career destroyed.

One of the key recommendations of the inquest was to change the law about when abortions could be performed to "remove doubt and fear amongst doctors".

 

I believe the phrase was "clarify", not "change". Also, whilst I probably know less about this than you do, isn't it correct that there were quite a few failngs wrt blood tests, routines, messages etc, which, if done properly, would have led to the neccesary conclusion?

[A wilding]

Hard to tell, given all the stuff about the retrospective changes made to her medical notes. It may well be that some purely medical mistakes were made. This does not alter the fact that without the law, and the "doubt and fear" factor, an abortion would certainly have been performed in time.

(I don't think whether the law is to be "clarified" or "changed" is particularly relevant.)

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

You are misrepresenting the debate. The question isn't science vs, religion, it is "is there a conflict between science and religion?" 

Different things.

As for your second paragraph, I agree wholeheartedly.

Fair enough.