CALTECH COSMOLOGIST AND PHYSICIST Sean Carroll teams up with Skeptic magazine publisher and science historian Michael Shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and King's College President Dinesh D'Souza and MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age. As science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as Why there is something rather than nothing?, Where did the universe come from?, How did life arise?, What was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them. Don't miss this great debate and come with your questions for the audience participation portion of the day!
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
I believe yes science has fully refuted religion, and fully articulated this refutation, it's just not mainstream yet. The same for science embracing spirituality instead.
Atheists believe that Science has refuted religion; unsurprisingly religionists do not.
So everyone is happy.
First speaker is awsome and hit the nail on the head. Second speaker is one long retreat to the possible peppered with the occasional strawman.
To have any discussion about God, one need first a definition of God, otherwise the discussion is completely empty.
If god is the fundamentalist version of god who made the universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago and made muhammed fly into the sky on a horse, science has refuted that idea as totally as it can.
If god is a moderate christian god who used evolution and so on but raised jesus from the dead, this is an extraordinary claim with little evidence in its favor and science tell us we should not accept it on those grounds.
If god is much different than those two I think the argument is if God is 'God' at all :-).
Irony alert: Dines De Suza invite us to face our own blindspot around 37 minutes in.
Then it suddenly gets crazy:
Dines De Suza: "For science to refuse religion, it require science to answer these questions [meaning of live, what is going to come after we die, where are we going] better than religion. (...) But science answer is the following: 'dont have a clue, dont have a clue and dont have a clue'"
Why are we here? science has no answer
Why is there an universe? science has no answer
What is going to happend after we die? science has no answer
Why the heck would anyone invite De Suza to anything with a microphone?
Let's just wait for james and everyone else from the Atheism thread to see this baby. I reckon we'll be off topic by. . . page 4?
Now how should I play this one. Hmm.
Agnosticism, I choose you!!!
Anyway, the problem with this question is Religion can be whatever you want it to be. With so many variants you can't really rule out 'Religion' in it's entirety. They might all believe in a God or Gods, but the differences in doctrine across the board are vast. And with such difference, there are probably religions out there that do not conflict with modern science. If a religion bases its teachings on a 2000 year old tome, say, then they might have some difficulty trying to fit ancient world mythology and morality with our modern understanding. But at the core, it's just the worship of a deity. And science cannot refute God because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Having said that, trying to prove a million different gods with a million different characteristics isn't really the best use of a Scientists time.
Humans got to the top of the food chain by devising better.
Survival instinct is pretty damned powerful.
Being able to foresee a time when you will be dead is devastating.
The survival instinct kicks in BIG TIME!
The human imagination concocts a rescue plan: super being: God.
The need for HOPE that we won't die is far more powerful than we may imagine.
Until Science offers the equivalent of a superhero who will save us from death Religion has the uppper hand.
Emotion trumps reason when our own ass is on the line.
Thanks for the link. Will listen to the debate later.
D'Souza is such a whining whinging pain in the arse.
DSouzas argument in a nutshell:
"If science cant answer what the purpose of my life is, religion is true!"
"For science to refuse religion, it require science to answer these questions [meaning of live, what is going to come after we die, where are we going] better than religion
What a silly assertion. Science DOES NOT have to answer these questions to refute religion. That's not what science does. It tests theories and tries to falsify them. This is the old 'religion wins by default'. If you can't answer these questions, then it must be a god. Tiresome argument.
But that said, answering the question 'what is going to come after we die' better than a religious person is like answering "what do unicorns prefer to eat, apples or honey?' That's not science---answering questions about mythical things.