"Science is based somewhat on religion"

Brion
Brion's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
"Science is based somewhat on religion"

So here I am talking to my friend Pat on yahoo, he knows I'm an atheist and we've never really talked about it, (even though I'm very open about my Atheism), and so today he said "...since science is somewhat based on religion..." and I didn't know what to say to that other than...Nu Uh!

I've never really debated so I'm obviously not very good at it and was wondering if I could get some help from here, any help would be appreciated and I will be glad to share our bet of 10 invisible dollars.

 

 Thanks in advance,

                             Trevor
 

"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a religion, and he'll starve to death praying for fish." - Anonymous
"If God doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you." -Anonymous


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
The first thing you should

The first thing you should ask is what the hell he's talking about. Could he elaborate a bit more? What part of science is based on what part of religion? Pat has given us very little to debate with.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


DrTerwilliker
DrTerwilliker's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  That's shockingly

Wow.  That's shockingly severe dumbassery.  You really shouldn't need to debate him on that, because he shouldn't think that.  But as is, all you probably need to do ask questions and let him dig himself into a nice little hole he can't climb out of.  You needn't put forth any real effort.


Johannes Ackermann
Johannes Ackermann's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I always find it disturbing

I always find it disturbing when the word "science" is used as if it's a peer of religion. Like: "You can choose whether you believe in religion or science."

No... I can't choose to "believe" in science. It's not another religion. One cannot "believe" in a fact or a scientific theory. facts are facts... nuff said. With theories I can see the merrit in one, agree with one, disagree with one, etc. "Believe"  never comes into the picture. If a scientific theory required belief or faith, it simply wouldn't qualify as scientific!

Religion in contrast relies EXCLUSIVELY on faith and belief... the two principles expressly rejected by science.

Your friend has made what is known to me as a "sweeping statement": throwing a controversial comment in amongst general discussion, and then moving along swiftly to avoid confrontation. The purpose of a sweeping statement is not genarally to invite debate, but rather to throw the other party "off balance", which he obviously succeeded in doing! Smiling

My advice: take the high road. Write back to him and say: "Oh yeah?! Well... shut up, that's why!!"

Atheism: My licence to sleep in on Sundays.


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
This is probably going to

This is probably going to be one of the following standard jibes...

1) Science requires that the universe have laws and rational order to work.  Only religion tells us that nature has an order too it.  Therefore science is a religious endeavor.

This one is easily broken apart.  The second premise, that only religion shows us that nature has an order to it is down right bizarre and false.  It assumes that without the bible, quran, bahgdvaghita, etc that if I observe the world around me I won't find good general rules of thumb by which to begin making predictions about future observations and behaviors in the universe.  This is a good place to bring up that scientific "laws", the basis of premise one, are not so much set in stone laws as they are descriptions of how things tend to work in the general case.  In science, laws actually tell us less than theories.  The law of gravity tells us that massive bodies tend to attract each other, but it is the THEORY of Gravity that attempts to tell us the how and why.  Science only requires that the universe be observable and that we be able to infer data from those observations.

2)  Some of the best scientists like (Newton, Kepler, Einstein, etc) were religious.  Their beliefs guided their desire to understand what they believed to be God's creation.  Therefore science is a religious endeavor.

Once again we are met with bad premises, which always lead to a bad conclusion.  The beliefs of a scientist do not necessarily translate into defining their work.  It may be true that Newton was religious, and that he did his work to understand God, but the method he used was not religion.  Newton did not pray for the divine revelation of his understanding of gravity.  Far from it, he used experimentation and falsification, not prayer and faith, to make his discoveries.  Besides, if one claims that the personal qualities of a scientist necessarily become a part of their theories, then all homophobic fundies should cease using computers since Allan Turing was gay.  Oh and quit using algebra lest they find themselves tainted by Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī's Islamic leanings.

3)  Science has faith in Axioms.  Therefore science is just as faith based as religion.

This is the shortest one to debunk.  If an axiom in science could be demonstrated to be flawed.  We would gladly throw it away.  What could be more wonderful than discovering that one of the axioms of the whole scientific endeavor was wrong and that this new one will allow us to discover the previously undiscovered.  Conversely, the axioms of Religion are to be gaurded against all questions, all doubt, all changes in the modern perceptions of people.  Science would gladly take down its axioms in the presence of demonstrable evidence, relgions will gladly take down demonstrable evidence in the presence of its axioms.

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15743
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Funny how theists wont jump

Funny how theists wont jump off a building or cliff and leave it in god's hands.

I've heard "science supports my religion" from all the major labels of religion, from muslims, jews, christians and even a seihk. And it is nothing more than, "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtain".

It is nothing but a backpeddle dodge to save face to the fact that they buy stories of hocus pocus. I finally grew up and realized that the square peg will never fit into the round hole.

It is the same catigory as rabbit's feet and 4 leaf clovers. Nothing but superstition. But it never ceases to amaze me how elaborate these psuedo scientists are in their lies in the attempt to falsely use lagit science to justify belief in hocus pocus. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Another common argument

Another common argument you'll hear is that a lot of the great early research institutions and universities were founded by churches. It's the "We paid the tab so it's ours" argument.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
One of the best debate

One of the best debate tools available is a length of metaphorical rope and a platform from which your opponent can hang himself.

Hm... Pat... could be a girl.... anyway...

That statement, by itself, doesn't really mean anything. Here's what you must ask:

* What does "religion" mean?

* After he defines religion, ask him what each important word in the definition means.

* Any time you catch him answering vaguely, insist on a precise definiition.

* If he gets through that unscathed, do the same thing with science.

* If he gets through that, ask him to explain exactly how religion and science are the same. 

After about ten minutes, he's going to get severely pissed and insist that you know what he means and that you're being nitpicky. That's when you very politely say, "No, I don't know what I mean, and neither do you. I'm using the Socratic method to demonstrate that to you."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:One of

Hambydammit wrote:

One of the best debate tools available is a length of metaphorical rope and a platform from which your opponent can hang himself.

A metaphorical rope?

I... I think I did it wrong.

Shit, guys... I'm gonna need a shovel. And some quicklime.

A lot of quicklime.

Oh god oh god oh god 

Quote:
That's when you very politely say, "No, I don't know what I mean, and neither do you. I'm using the Socratic method to demonstrate that to you."

Do you mean "No, I don't know what you mean, and neither do you"? 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith

JeremiahSmith wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:
That's when you very politely say, "No, I don't know what I mean, and neither do you. I'm using the Socratic method to demonstrate that to you."

Do you mean "No, I don't know what you mean, and neither do you"?

 

  That's what I was thinking.