They did it again and got the same result.
Now, this is an interesting aspect of science.
Several teams around the world can recreate experiment X and get differing results: The infamous table-top cold fusion experiments being a good example.
In that instance, most of the experiments showed differing results from the original. (FWIW, what tainted the original claim was it's initial handling, not the science practice behind it.)
However, some experiments showed a similar, but not identical, result.
So where does that leave us?
At a stroke, most of the scientific community turned their back and declared it a nonsense - but how much of that was down to the initial experimenters handling of the claim and how much was to do with the science?
What was certainly apparent in most of the experiments was that a nuclear reaction was certainly taking place, the lab equipment used was showing signs of (IIRC) alpha radiation being produced. The evidence is there.

So in that case, we have a claim which most walked away from, despite there being apparently reasonable evidence to continue the research. Yes the initial claim was found to be wanting, but something was certainly going on.
And yet because of the popular opinion, it was a tainted chalice. If you wanted your funding, you don't do cold fusion research, or if you do, you don't call it cold fusion.
You do what the US Navy does and call it Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

Science is far from a united front, the idea that there is clearly defined yes or no answers to the world around is, well, in many ways a matter of your own faith in what you're told, ultimately.

There's an excellent documentary you should watch, directed by Bill Kroyer. It might just change your mind.

That is an example of a religious teaching that can be sensibly disputed with empirical evidence. There is something there that can be tested, so science can get involved. Well done, gold star to you sir.

What can't be tested is whether or not the big bang and evolution and all that [LIFTED] were the product of random forces, or directed by an intelligence. That's why the Pope doesn't argue about the 7 day thing, and accepts all of your evolutionary science, and isn't declaring the big theory a heresy. What's all in your mind is this view you have that these scientific doohickeys have any bearing on religion.

You are taking details, and crossing all your fingers and wishing on a star that they prove much more than they do.


I don't give a fcuck about creationism. I have already stated over and and over and over again that religion has no place answering scientific questions. So why are you leveling this witless straw man argument at me over and over and over again? Please pay attention this time - creationism is wrong, and I don't have to drop any of my previous arguments to say that.
Genesis is allegorical, if that's good enough for the pope, then you will just have to be a good little boy and learn to live with it.

Ok, cool, so I just have to keep going until we've got all the other books of the Bible out of the way then?


In other words a wishy washy creator concept quite distinct from any of the vindictive judgemental bastards portrayed in the main religious books. I've already agreed with you on this, remember



Good for him.


They didn't use to though. They used to be quite "against" all that sort of stuff... You could argue that it's only that we live in quite a secular society that we don't quite feel any need to attack religion. I wonder what the taliban's stance is on the issue...



It's quite a clear statement I'm making. Wherever the two contradict each other, the scientific theory should trump the religious one. And indeed it has done throughout history, hence why modern Christianity is an incredibly mild, "allegorical" collection of fairy stories, instead of the fire and brimstone, punish gays, sort of movement it used to be.

Also, the Pope sort of highlighted his ignorance and prejudice when he said that condoms increase the spread of HIV in Africa. He sort of lost any credibility for me, I don't tend to look at him as the model Christian, I have a higher opinion of most Catholics


I am taking details, looking at who's saying them and what evidence backs those details up, and them I'm making an informed reasoned choice. That's all I'm claiming. If you can't see the difference between that and "wishing on a star" then we must be "wishing on a star" about everything:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Hitchens

O/T Would you say you were a relativist by the way?


Cool, so you would say that anyone who holds the view would be better off holding a different one?

The annoying thing about being an atheist is you can never proved right, but you can be proved wrong.

Upon death there are three possible outcomes:
1) The is no god(s) or afterlife
2) One of the gods mankind believes in is real and created everything.
3) A completely different god exists who did it all.

If 2) or 3) is true, then you're proved wrong when you turn up at the pearly gate (or where ever).
If 1) is true, you'll never know it as you'll have no conciseness after death.
Almost as annoying as that far right religeous nut jobs will never know they were wrong for the same reasons.

As an atheist I accept the remote possibility that I could be totally wrong and a god could exist who created the universe and the laws of physics, and that there could be an afterlife. However, since there is no evidence to suggest that what-so-ever, I'll stick to my believe that there are no gods, ghosts, ghouls, spritis or any form of afterlife.

I'm finding it hard to be sure. What you refer to as wishy-washy to me looks like the distilled essence of religion, minus the beardy guy in the sky spouting arcane nonsense for the benefit of ancient goat herds. But neither if us really has much that is valid to say on what religion should be, given that we have both opted out already.

Are you abandoning your earlier claim that Rusty was just swapping one cult for another?


Theirs is another brand of faith that I'm not prepared to defend. I don't see any particular reason why they would be more vulnerable to scientific based arguments than the catholics though. Probably better to aim at the whole "is it good because god says, or does god have to do what is right to be good" question.

Much of this is peculiar to the christian church, other religions have not had the same history of fighting science. The early church was riven with controversies over long forgotten (even in Galileo's day) issues relating to the nature of Christ (divine, man or half and half?). So they roped in the cutting edge science of the day, which was old Greek stuff - particularly Aristotle's theory of substances - to solve these issues. But even then the allegorical nature of the Bible was widely accepted (as I mentioned already, Revelations wouldn't even be in there otherwise).

Where they got into a muddle was when science moved on from Aristotle. Galileo was a particular threat because he challenged an Aristotelian theory that the heavens were made of a different and more perfect substance than the corrupted Earth. It was an arcane piece of trivia that the church could easily have jettisoned, but they didn't feel like it.

Now I will grant you that Darwin did indeed have a Dangerous Idea, and I'll grant Dennet that it was a major challenge to religion in general to present this non teleological explanation of man's origin, because it removed the necessity of belief that the universe could be created for the purpose of creating Man. But it can never be more than a competing explanation at most. The current catholic belief is that it isn't even in competition with the religious theory. And that's pretty much an end to rational christians taking arms against science.

What's left to argue with them about on any scientific basis? You prove miracles are impossible, they prove that this is required for them to even be miracles. And that's only christianity. Jews and Muslims stopped having any miracles at all ages ago, other religions never had them at all. Hindus don't seem to be phased by scientific revelations that the universe wasn't churned out of a huge sea of milk.

Logically the magisteria of science and religion simply don't overlap, it's just difficult getting some parties on both sides to respect the border.


Can, yes. Must, no.


Moral relativist? Yes, and no. I certainly would need quite some persuading to align with the currently trendy neo-aristotelian (virtue ethics) approach. Deontology and consequentialism both don't work. So for the time being I'm either some form of relativist, or a moral skeptic. I'm not sure which, and I'm not convinced they are different things. We could do a fun thread on that topic (why is it wrong to kick a dog - if Immanuel Kant didn't know, who does?).

Yes. They would be well advised to at least hold a more sophisticated version of it. Challenging science outright with religious explanations is unnecessary to their ends. At the very least they will have to settle for just accepting that God had some kind of plan to make it look like evolution created all the animals over many aeons (and with it the idea that God can lie). But from there it's a small and equally advisable step to drop the biblical literalism entirely. If their faith isn't strong enough to withstand that, perhaps in their case it isn't doing them much good.

He swapped a new cult with one that has had time to evolve and become more socially acceptable. Scientology will have turned Hubbard into a God figure in a few hundred years time, that or some offshoot will out-compete the original movement because of better marketing. What was born from a cult however, always has the potential to revert back into one given the correct "Lord of the Flies" esque conditions. I think Christianity started out as a personality cult.

Similar to this gem!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

I think we've reached the end of our little debate don't you? I don't think we can continue without saying things we've already been over. Interesting, and thanks for the input.

You do writ a lot don't you?

A simple claim is simply tested. "All earthquakes can be prevented by a hetacomb". Easy to test.

"Occasionally an earthquake can be prevented by a hetacomb" Not so easy (but a less impressive claim)

Science follows results. If a small study were to find that one claim of religion were true funding would follow to check out other claims.


As far as I know no studies give strong evidence for any of the gods actively intervening on this planet. …yet.

When I want to avoid excessive simplification, yes.


That would be the kind of excess I am talking about. Science needs replicable results, religion doesn't; so the fact that a claim isn't scientifically interesting doesn't entail religious insignificance. You can learn much more about good science by understanding why it doesn't torture itself with religious investigation than you can by fruitlessly chasing your tail with bad science.

The problem of induction is not a threat in the normal order of business for scientists because their methodology doesn't require consideration of such details - it is implicit in all science that what applies today will also apply tomorrow. To move into a sphere where there can be no expectation of consistent results - given that one of the things to be tested is the whim of a deity - is therefore a great folly (and a necessarily unscientific endeavour).

And if a small study discovers no correlation between praying to a crocodile and the sun falling out of the sky, they would be lucky to get an ignobel.

Quite a few such studies have been carried out. So far nothing conclusive.

Seems odd really. If gods are active in this world you would think that there would be something tangible to show for it.

Not really, it's evidence of the scientists involved being bad at their job. As I already explained, you can't fool an omnipotent god with a double blind study. And you can't force and omnipotent god to participate with your experiment. It's an idiotic waste of time to carry out such a study.

Fool a god? Who would be trying to fool a god? The studies simply are looking at god's work.

Is the implication that a god would want nobody to believe in them? That a god would be inclined to play a global game of hide and seek?

What would be the point of that?


< confused.

Personal amusement? Test of faith?

The question of motive is neither here nor there, religious people accept that god moves in mysterious ways so there's no validity to moving on the assumption that he doesn't.

Your problem is that science only tests for things which under a given circumstance must happen, but you propose to extend it to cover things which decide whether or not to happen. That simply isn't scientific, so it's the wrong thing to do with science.

Well it was you that suggested that some "fooling" was going on. It was you that suggested that God would try to avoid being detected. Thus suggesting "motive".




You are speaking for all religious people? Maybe you are right. This however is not relevant. Science does not shy from investigating the mysterious.



I beg to differ. Science can also investigate what has happened in the past. e.g. Cosmology (big bang etc). Sociology (causes for WW2 etc). Evolotution (how life has changed in the past).




We can easily check if there is any advantage to faith.

Did war/slave ships sink more than christian missionary ships? for example would be a good test for checking if praying for the safe passage of missionaries is worth doing.

Do christians take anti anxiety medication? would be a good test for the effect of God's peace on Christians.

How many mountains move when prayed for? would be a good test for faith moving mountains.

Do Christians die when you poison them? would be a good test for the claim in Mark 16 v 18 for example.

(17“These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name …18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; …”)


I don't see the problem.

Some claims can't be tested e.g. God is love

Other claims obviously can.

CC