Jump to content

Religion vs Atheism Book 2


Stubby

Recommended Posts

New thread.

 

I'm probably wasting my time, but I've read a little around to find out what happened in this case. What I've read tells me that it was a terrible case, it was a case showing errors in judgement on a systemic level at the hospital in question. However, it isn't a question of religion vs. science. 

Provoked? Probably, if you care at all about me writing. However, I am going to lay out why I've reached my conclusion.

Science can tell us that there are conditions that may be fatal. In such cases, science will inform us that unless the pregnancy is terminated, the consequence will be the loss of life of the mother. And, as it happens, this was probably known to the medical staff at the hospital. It was at least assumed, in that this is what medicine basically trains people for.

However, science cannot make the decision to take every concievable test, it cannot make people less forgetful, it cannot overcome bad routines. Basically, it cannot overcome the possibility of human or systemic error. 

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. 

Your argument has been that religion killed mrs. Halappanavar and science would have saved her. However, science in itself wouldn't have saved her, and a scientifically informed worldview couldn't either - because these worldviews are not clashing in this case. Instead, what is clashing is a liberal vs concervative view on abortion. Crucially, however, both would allow abortion in this case had it been known that mrs. Halappanavar's life was threatened. 

What you can argue from this case is that a liberal worldview would save the lives of more women. What you cannot infer is that a scientifically informed worldview would have kept mrs. Halappanavar alive.

 

1. I never claimed it could.

2. I'm going to rephrase that for you.

 

What you cannot argue from this case is that a liberal religious worldview would save the lives of more women. What you cannot infer is that a scientifically informed worldview would likely have kept mrs. Halappanavar alive if the religious law had not been there in the first place.

 

That amounts to a conflict between religion and science.

Otherwise, what Seli said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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 earlier you said: "if you assert that no thing comes from nothing, that is the most common example of a thing in need of a creator"

Either you are doing away with this assertion and the universe can come from nothing too, in which case your "creator" becomes useless, or you keep this assertion and create a case of special pleading where the universe cannot come from nothing but instead is explained by a creator which for some reason is allowed to come from nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That amounts to a conflict between religion and science.

No, it does not. I'm going to try this one more time before giving up. You (and a few others in the locked thread) have infused your view of science with elements of your morality and then refer to this abomination as science that is in conflict with religion. Science has no such elements -- it is a description of the universe and as such is totally amoral. It is completely irrelevant from the scientific point of view whether the woman lives or dies, whether the hospital workers rely on religion or wishful thinking or coin tosses rather than scientific results or anything of the sort. To give you more obvious examples, science can be used to build nuclear weapons and design custom viruses intended to be used in a genocidal war.

The scientific framework tells you nothing about morality or ethics; it is simply knowledge of the how the universe works backed by experimental verification. It can conflict with religion when the latter makes falsifiable statements about the universe (e.g. the claim that the Earth is around 6000 years old is in conflict with science). However, your example with the pregnancy gone wrong doesn't have anything like that -- it's simply the actions of human beings that led to a result nobody wanted.

By the way, I found a nice page from Berkeley about science that clearly addresses issues like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it does not. I'm going to try this one more time before giving up. You (and a few others in the locked thread) have infused your view of science with elements of your morality and then refer to this abomination as science that is in conflict with religion. Science has no such elements -- it is a description of the universe and as such is totally amoral. It is completely irrelevant from the scientific point of view whether the woman lives or dies, whether the hospital workers rely on religion or wishful thinking or coin tosses rather than scientific results or anything of the sort. To give you more obvious examples, science can be used to build nuclear weapons and design custom viruses intended to be used in a genocidal war.

The scientific framework tells you nothing about morality or ethics; it is simply knowledge of the how the universe works backed by experimental verification. It can conflict with religion when the latter makes falsifiable statements about the universe (e.g. the claim that the Earth is around 6000 years old is in conflict with science). However, your example with the pregnancy gone wrong doesn't have anything like that -- it's simply the actions of human beings that led to a result nobody wanted.

By the way, I found a nice page from Berkeley about science that clearly addresses issues like this one.

Since you've jumped in after  pages and pages of real-world examples of where your sophism fails, I 'll make the same request of you that I have made of others.

Provide some evidence of a practical real-world situation where the actions of believers - relying solely on unproven beliefs - that have practical real-world consequences for people who don't share those beliefs is NOT a conflict between religious belief and science.  I'm really not interested in theoretical differences - I only care about situations where people die or are forced into complying with the tenets of religious believers through law or violence - in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Wave your hands or pray all you like, neither of those things will save or dramatically improve your life if you have a medical condition that religious prevent doctors from treating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provide some evidence of a practical real-world situation where the actions of believers - relying solely on unproven beliefs - that have practical real-world consequences for people who don't share those beliefs is NOT a conflict between religious belief and science.  I'm really not interested in theoretical differences - I only care about situations where people die or are forced into complying with the tenets of religious believers through law or violence - in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

All real world situations involving religion that have practical consequences for non-believers satisfy this criterion. The actions of human beings cannot be in conflict with science -- as I've said multiple times, science does not tell anyone how to act. Even if a religious belief has been falsified based on extremely strong scientific evidence, science makes no judgement on people who choose to act as if that belief is true (regardless of whether their actions affect anyone else or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All real world situations involving religion that have practical consequences for non-believers satisfy this criterion. The actions of human beings cannot be in conflict with science -- as I've said multiple times, science does not tell anyone how to act. Even if a religious belief has been falsified based on extremely strong scientific evidence, science makes no judgement on people who choose to act as if that belief is true (regardless of whether their actions affect anyone else or not).

It shouldn't be hard to provide some evidence then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly the problem, if morality derives from a supreme being then any behaviour, regardless of how devoid of compassion, goodwill, or human decency can be justified.

And yes, I think I am qualified to define wicked, or as qualified as anyone else.

Isn't that merely your subjectivity? In which case, what makes your subjectivity better or more qualified than anyone else's? That's the problem with atheism, it is the mere subjectivity of one or the masses. It will always be subjective and not objective. 

Boko Haram thinks that they are doing what is right and that what the West is doing is wicked from their subjective point of view. 

In the end, all atheist arguments come down to is 'I'm right because I think I'm right because I define for myself what is right.'

1. So what?  Disagreement is good.  Pandering to something written (in some parts) several thousands of years ago and saying this must be right is worse than disagreement.  Disagreement fosters discussion - at least among people who don't think they should blindly follow the tenets of a vile book.

2. I always say to prove that it is more likely than not.  In your own time then.

3. Fair enough.  What if were Kali that is proven to be correct?  Would you worship her?

4. Then why would you worship one that has never been proven to exist?

5.  You still haven't defined "saved".  And do you mean that you wouldn't be sad that millions of people (and animals and plants etc) were going to die?  And by die, I mean lose the only existence we have ever been proven to have.

6. If you cannot even tell us clearly what a child's "sinful nature" is, how can you possibly say that all children have a "sinful nature" with a straight face?  Seriously, this is fucked up.

And now I'll frame one of my earlier observations about the ark story as a question, because you have ignored it:

7. What sin did the animals and plants of the world commit that meant they deserved to die in the flood?  In the case of the animals, in what was likely abject terror.

1. Disagreement leads to war and all sorts of crimes too.  Disagreement is not always good.

2. So your belief is that it is more likely than not, that there is no God?

This is what I think, the universe could not have just come into existence, it is an effect that has been caused by something. Secondly, science can't explain macro-evolution. I accept that it can explain micro-evolution though. Because it one doesn't believe there is a God, then we are really just the product of random chance and circumstance.

3. I don't know who or what Kali is or what Kali worship involves. If Kali is true then again, I don't see how denying the truth is better than accepting it.

4. Jesus did exist. It's in history. He is a historic figure that did exist in texts outside Christian texts as well.

5. By saved I mean, spared from hell and given eternal life. It is a sad thing that millions of people, plants and animals etc are going to die. But death happens all the time, it is a fact that things die. I'm sad that people will die, but I accept that it happens. But for Christians, death isn't the end. I think atheists make such a big deal about death because death is the end for them. They have nothing more than to be consigned to history and forgotten.

6. Sin is putting a crown on oneself and ignoring God and what he wants for us, and is expressed in things such as lying, cheating, stealing and murder. The base instinct, even of children, is selfishness. 

7. I'll get back to you on the animals and plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I think, the universe could not have just come into existence, it is an effect that has been caused by something. Secondly, science can't explain macro-evolution. I accept that it can explain micro-evolution though. Because it one doesn't believe there is a God, then we are really just the product of random chance and circumstance. 

No you can't explain "macro-evolution" science already has. Accepting "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution" is like accepting a person can walk 10 metres but not a kilometre. They use the exact same mechanism, the only difference is timescale.

4. Jesus did exist. It's in history. He is a historic figure that did exist in texts outside Christian texts as well.

A guy named Jesus may have existed. But that's no more proof of the Jesus of the bible than a Photographer in New York named Peter Parker is proof of Spiderman. Or Saint Nicholas is proof of Santa Claus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No you can't explain "macro-evolution" science already has. Accepting "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution" is like accepting a person can walk 10 metre but not a kilometre. They use the exact same mechanism, the only difference is timescale.

Then where are all the fossils of the bridging creatures? If the difference is timescale, then shouldn't there be many fossils and evidence of how animals changed into other animals? Science should then be able to trace the evolution of everything from protozoa right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't be hard to provide some evidence then.

Evidence of what? Science is a system of knowledge that describes the laws of nature and attempts to verify them via experimental evidence. Human actions (whether they happen to be based on religion and affecting non-believers or not) can use the knowledge provided by science as an input, can ignore it or can even deliberately be based on the assumption that the knowledge is wrong -- it makes no difference whatsoever to science. They're not even in the same category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to type out a response to his absurd caricature of secular morality but there really isn't any point in engaging with people who spout the "science can't explain macro evolution" bullshit. He's either a troll or too far gone. 

Or you just can't handle the truth.

Again, happy for you to provide evidence that you so love.

Secular morality can't do anything without resorting to the end point being that the person arguing for one position  thinks that their version of morality is more correct in comparison to someone elses. I doubt that secular morality could justify the overthrow to a democratically elected government of Egypt without resorting to an argument which basically thinks that their values should override the values of the people of Egypt because they are somehow superior.

 

Scot,

Yeah, we probably won't have a full fossil record. But still, science should still be able to trace the evolution of all species from single celled protozoa and provide some sort of evidence of the bridges between species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then where are all the fossils of the bridging creatures? If the difference is timescale, then shouldn't there be many fossils and evidence of how animals changed into other animals? Science should then be able to trace the evolution of everything from protozoa right?

Yeah, it's called every fossil ever. And everything did not evolve from protozoa. Where the fuck would you even get such a stupid idea?

We've seen speciation... haven't we?

Yes. Though I wonder if Daemrion is caught up on the most recent bit of bullshit creation apologetics. Being essentially the speciation happens, but is arbitrarily limited only within "kinds" because reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's called every fossil ever. And everything did not evolve from protozoa. Where the fuck would you even get such a stupid idea?

Yes. Though I wonder if Daemrion is caught up on the most recent bit of bullshit creation apologetics. Being essentially the speciation happens, but is arbitrarily limited only within "kinds" because reasons.

So then where did life first begin in your opinion? So are you saying that there were multiple created species to begin with? It's been a while since I've done school science and biology, but I thought evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a single-celled organism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then where did life first begin in your opinion? So are you saying that there were multiple created species to begin with?

I have no idea, and no no I'm not. WTF does this have to do with evolution? Oh wait nothing, stay on topic or I'm not going to respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea, and no no I'm not. WTF does this have to do with evolution? Oh wait nothing, stay on topic or I'm not going to respond.

Doesn't evolutionary theory hold that we can trace backwards from what we have now to the beginning of life?

You pointed out that the difference between micro and macro evolution is timescale. I assumed that macro evolution would take longer than micro evolution (which I accept may be wrong). But that's the thing, if it takes longer shouldn't we have more evidence of it? For example, have we got fossil evidence tracing the evolution of gills to lungs, and if it is a series of micro-changes, where are all the stages of that evolution in fossil evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Disagreement leads to war and all sorts of crimes too.  Disagreement is not always good.

2. So your belief is that it is more likely than not, that there is no God?

This is what I think, the universe could not have just come into existence, it is an effect that has been caused by something. Secondly, science can't explain macro-evolution. I accept that it can explain micro-evolution though. Because it one doesn't believe there is a God, then we are really just the product of random chance and circumstance.

3. I don't know who or what Kali is or what Kali worship involves. If Kali is true then again, I don't see how denying the truth is better than accepting it.

4. Jesus did exist. It's in history. He is a historic figure that did exist in texts outside Christian texts as well.

5. By saved I mean, spared from hell and given eternal life. It is a sad thing that millions of people, plants and animals etc are going to die. But death happens all the time, it is a fact that things die. I'm sad that people will die, but I accept that it happens. But for Christians, death isn't the end. I think atheists make such a big deal about death because death is the end for them. They have nothing more than to be consigned to history and forgotten.

6. Sin is putting a crown on oneself and ignoring God and what he wants for us, and is expressed in things such as lying, cheating, stealing and murder. The base instinct, even of children, is selfishness. 

7. I'll get back to you on the animals and plants.

1. I never said it was always good. In your experience, are you always correct?  On everything?

2. No.  I accept that there is no evidence that there is a god.  If we are just the product of random chance and circumstance, so what?  That doesn't prove there is a god.

3. You are dodging the question, Daemrion.  Because according to the logic you expressed above, you should worship her if she turns out to be real. So, again, if it turns out that Kali is true, would you worship her?

4. Prove that Jesus existed and was the son of god please.  Your Nobel prize awaits you.

5. I don't believe there is a place called hell.  I know Christians think that death isn't the end.  But they have never proven that to be the case either.  I accept that death is the end for me.  That's why it is more than just "sad".  Your casual dismissal of what is the only existence ever for people who don't believe in god is scary.

6. In other words, because kids are selfish they deserve to die. Wow.  Just wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...