Isaiah Smith (PRO)My position is that science does not concern itself with refuting the supernatural. I will present two distinct philosophies of Naturalism according to Wiki (1):
1) Metaphysical naturalism - is a philosophical view that there is nothing but natural elements and principles as described by natural sciences. All supernatural explanations of the universe are rejected.
2) Methodological naturalism - This is more practical as it doesn't concern itself with what exists, but learning what nature is. All hypotheses and events are to be tested by reference to cause and effects. What caused nature is not the concern of science.
Science by default cannot address the existence of God, angels, unicorns, demons, etc. because these things are outside of nature (2). It is a mistaken notion to treat science as a way to find what exists and what doesn't because science is strictly concerned with learning more about how nature works (3).
Conclusion:
Any supernatural belief in miracles or beings are justifiable in the minds of those who choose to believe in them just as a belief in a completely natural world is. I will address more next round.
Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29#Metaphysical_naturalism
2. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-21 05:39:20
| Speak Roundergodicsum (CON)I agree with the position of my opponent that science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. The typical definition of supernatural is that which is above or beyond nature (1). Science is deals with nature or the natural. Hence the statement is really a tautology. It is just as informative to say that science, doesn't concern itself with things which are not scientific.
However, that is not the topic of the debate. We are comparing religion with science, not the supernatural with science. Religions make two types of claims, those that are understood to be concerning the supernatural, and those that concern the natural world.
Examples of religious claims that deal with the natural:
1) In certain christian denominations, it is believe that the world is about 6000 years old and that evolution didn't happened. They base theses beliefs on their interpretation of the book of Genesis. The age of the earth and the process through which different species arose on earth is a natural matter. The idea that the earth is 6000 years old conflicts with science. The idea that evolution didn't happened, also conflicts with science. (1)
2) Payer. In many religions, but particularly in Christianity there is the concept of intercessory prayer. The idea is that if you pray for something and have faith then God will answer your prayers. Oftentimes intercessory prayer is done to ask for healing, and hence in these cases in that religious framework, prayer can have a causal effect on the health of the person being prayed for. The health of a person is a natural matter. Proponents for the efficacy of prayer are effectively saying that there is a correlation between prayer and healing. The correlation being there, is a natural matter. Studies have been done which show no correlation between between intercessory prayer and healing. (3)
3) Christian Scientists. Christian science(4) is a religion which believes that illness is an illusion that can be healed with prayer alone. From Wikipedia:
The claim that their prayer is more effective when not combined with medicine is in the realm of the natural since it deals with physical health of a person. Scientific studies to show which is more effective haven't been done, so at the moment this is technically not a contradiction between what science concludes and what the Christian Science church concludes. However, this is another illustration of a case when religious claims deal with the natural.The church does not require that Christian Scientists avoid all medical care – adherents use dentists, optometrists, obstetricians, physicians for broken bones, and vaccination when required by law – but maintains that Christian Science prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine.[12] Between the 1880s and 1990s the avoidance of medical treatment was blamed forthe deathsof several adherents and their children; parents and others were prosecuted for manslaughter or neglect, and in a few cases convicted.
4) In Hinduism there is a myth about how the different species were created (5). The account is:
TheShatapatha Brahmana says that in the beginning,Prajapati, the first creator or father of all, was alone in the world. He differentiated himself into two beings, husband and wife. The wife, regarding union with her producer as incest, fled from his embraces assuming various animal disguises. The husband pursued in the form of the male of each animal, and from these unions sprang the various species of beasts (Shatapatha Brahmana, xiv. 4, 2). Prajapati was soon replaced withBrahma in the Puranas.
How various species of beasts came to be, is again a natural matter. The idea in the Hindu religion is that Prajapati's female part turned into different animal species. This again conflicts with the current theory of evolution through natural selection. Natural selection is what caused the species for form, not a conscious entity turning into different animals.
My opponent also takes the non sequitur position, that since science doesn't deal with the supernatural, we are justified to believe in whatever supernatural concept(s) we wish to believe. This deals with the justification of knowledge (6), which is a vast area of philosophy and another possible debate. However, the current debate deals with conflicts between religion and science not justification of knowledge.
Conclusion:
We see that religions don't just make claims about the supernatural. They also make claims about the natural world. It is when this intersection happens, that we in some cases, see conflicts between science and religion.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis (example of a religious group that believes in a 6000 year old earth)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_mythology#Cosmogony_and_cosmology
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-21 07:57:39
| Speak RoundIsaiah Smith (PRO)My opponent claims that i'm making a tautology and that there is a distinction in religion between the natural and supernatural. He attempts to show natural claims religious people make, but gives a source directing us to the "Supernatural" page on Wikipedia. Earlier i said that Methodological naturalism isn't concerned with the causes of nature so keep in mind that there is a distinction between a cause of a phenomenon whether known or unknown and it's observable effect.
For his first claim, he makes the claim that certain Christian denominations hold to creationism (1). What he ignores is that creationists hold this view on the basis of divine creation, not on natural observations of the world. If Christians claim that their views are scientifically supported then it is only their claims on the creation of the universe that conflict with science, not religion itself.
He misrepresents Christian belief of prayer. In the wiki article called "Studies on Intercessory prayer", it begins with "Some religions claim that praying for somebody who is sick can have positive effects on the health of the person being prayed for." There is a wide diversity of theological viewpoints on prayer within Christianity alone. Secondly, prayer is simply communication between God and man. Ultimately, he fails to provide a solid distinction between natural and supernatural claims of religion. Examining the effects of health is natural, but God is considered completely supernatural or beyond the realm of science.
For his final claim, he chooses Christian science to illustrate his point. But i will summarize this in the following: Everything that my opponent posted is focused on the effects of prayer, not on the cause of it which is considered to be supernatural. It's thus outside the realm of science.
His fourth claim is on a Hindu myth. Mythology in general are stories taking a non-scientific approach to explain the origins of nature from a particular ancient culture (2). Any ancient religious creation myth that my opponent picks will result in a stalement as the modern mind differs greatly from the ancient mind. The modern mind created universal impersonal laws on nature. This mode of thought began with the Greeks. The ancient mind however took experiences at face value without any regard for resolving contradictions (3).
Because Scientific ideas are open to the possibility of being falsified (4), whatever religion claims to be the origin of the universe can never be completely ruled out.
Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoeic_thought
4. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b7
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-21 09:24:04
| Speak Roundergodicsum (CON)The objections that my opponent has against my examples share a common theme. He tries to show that those religious beliefs are not shared by all religious people, hence it cannot be said that religion conflicts with science.
Yes, of course, I understand that not all Christians believe in creationism and not all Christians believe in intercessory prayer. However, those beliefs are part of that group's set of religious beliefs. In addition to being part of their religious beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are true has observable implication in the natural world. Hence these are religious beliefs that can be verified or tested with natural methodology.
For example, he makes the assertion that in the case of the creationist Christians "it is only their claims on the creation of the universe that conflict with science, not religion itself." However, these beliefs about the creation of the universe are part of their religious beliefs (1). There are many other examples in what is considered fundamentalist Christianity. For example, they believe that the earth is 6000 years old. This is part of their religious belief. Answers in Genesis makes the statement: "For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Answers section—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology,astronomy, andgenetics."
In relation to the prayer example I gave, I want to explain my position a little better. I did not mean to imply that all Christians, have the same concept of how prayer works. I agree with my opponent that there are different beliefs among different people as to what the reasons for prayer are, or how prayer works. What I was referring to in my example, was not all types of prayer. I was specifically referring to healing through intercessory prayer. Some Christians have the belief that something that can be observed in the natural world (prayer) is an indirect cause of something that can be observed in the natural world as well (healing). As they understand it, God is the cause of the healing, but they believe that they interceded for that healing. Hence we should be able to observe the correlation between prayer and healing since both of these are physical, even if we are not able to observe what they believe would be the underlying cause of the correlation, namely God. Their beliefs about how intercessory prayer works, implies that there should be a correlation between prayer and healing, however, the correlation is not there, hence the conflict is between the religious belief that there should be a correlation between prayer and healing, and the scientific studies which don't show a correlation. (2)
My opponent tries to diminish my Christian Science example by claiming that I focused on the effects of prayer, not on the cause of it which is considered to be supernatural, and he says that therefore the cause of the effects are out side the realm of science. However, looking at the concepts of illness, prayer and healing as believed in the Christian Science religion we should be a find correlation between their type of prayer and how well a patient heals. Christian Scientists believe that when trying to heal an illness, you will get better results by only praying vs. praying and medical intervention together. We can observe both prayer and healing through the natural world, and hence we can determine if there is a correlation between the two. The mechanism might be outside of science, however, the existence of the correlation is not outside of science.
On my last example, as I understand it, my opponent claims that the "ancient mind" and the "modern mind" took different approaches to understanding the world. I agree with this, however, I do not see how this would imply that the Hindu description of how species came to be, is consistent with the scientific description, both cannot be true at the same time. I understand that ancient people thought differently than us, but the fact that they thought differently, doesn't imply that their beliefs about how the world works, don't conflict with science.
Conclusion:
I showed 4 example of religious beliefs which intersect with the natural world and observations can be made to test the religious beliefs. In 3 of these examples, we see a conflict with science. My opponent tried to diminish these examples by claiming that not all Christians hold the views presented in the examples, which is true, but these are religious views nonetheless. There are other religious views which might not be in conflict with science. However, the fact that some are in conflict with science prevents us from making a blanket statement like "Science doesn't conflict with religion."
1. https://answersingenesis.org/about/
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-21 14:48:58
| Speak RoundIsaiah Smith (PRO)"Yes, of course, I understand that not all Christians believe in creationism and not all Christians believe in intercessory prayer. However, those beliefs are part of that group's set of religious beliefs. In addition to being part of their religious beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are true has observable implication in the natural world. Hence these are religious beliefs that can be verified or tested with natural methodology."
My opponent ignores the source given demonstrating that these groups are making these claims on the basis of divine revelation, not by scientific findings.
"In relation to the prayer example I gave, I want to explain my position a little better. I did not mean to imply that all Christians, have the same concept of how prayer works. I agree with my opponent that there are different beliefs among different people as to what the reasons for prayer are, or how prayer works. What I was referring to in my example, was not all types of prayer. I was specifically referring to healing through intercessory prayer. Some Christians have the belief that something that can be observed in the natural world (prayer) is an indirect cause of something that can be observed in the natural world as well (healing). As they understand it, God is the cause of the healing, but they believe that they interceded for that healing. Hence we should be able to observe the correlation between prayer and healing since both of these are physical, even if we are not able to observe what they believe would be the underlying cause of the correlation, namely God. Their beliefs about how intercessory prayer works, implies that there should be a correlation between prayer and healing, however, the correlation is not there, hence the conflict is between the religious belief that there should be a correlation between prayer and healing, and the scientific studies which don't show a correlation. (2)"
My opponent tries to diminish my Christian Science example by claiming that I focused on the effects of prayer, not on the cause of it which is considered to be supernatural, and he says that therefore the cause of the effects are out side the realm of science. However, looking at the concepts of illness, prayer and healing as believed in the Christian Science religion we should be a find correlation between their type of prayer and how well a patient heals. Christian Scientists believe that when trying to heal an illness, you will get better results by only praying vs. praying and medical intervention together. We can observe both prayer and healing through the natural world, and hence we can determine if there is a correlation between the two. The mechanism might be outside of science, however, the existence of the correlation is not outside of science."
My opponent doesn't cite a source which explicitly states the doctrinal beliefs of a Christian denomination. Prayer in itself is a simple way of communicating with God and it is not a rule that God must respond to all prayers. An example of when prayer will not be answered is when it is made out of lust (James 4:3.) The claim "Prayer doesn't work" is meaningless. If i call the president and he doesn't pick up, should we then conclude that calling doesn't work? It appears my opponent is attempting to show through these studies that because prayer is shown to have no effective on healing, it conflicts with science when it's not the case. A scientific study done by Randolph Byrd showed that intercessory prayer did have an effect on healing (2). It is therefore that the results are inconclusive as to whether or not intercessory prayer has an effect on other humans. Studies have shown however that prayer has many benefits to the individual person (3).
"On my last example, as I understand it, my opponent claims that the "ancient mind" and the "modern mind" took different approaches to understanding the world. I agree with this, however, I do not see how this would imply that the Hindu description of how species came to be, is consistent with the scientific description, both cannot be true at the same time. I understand that ancient people thought differently than us, but the fact that they thought differently, doesn't imply that their beliefs about how the world works, don't conflict with science."
My opponent agrees with me that the ancient mind and modern mind took different approaches to the world but ignores the implications. The ancient mind never intended to create universal laws applying to all circumstances while the modern mind does. Because both mindsets conflict, it cannot be reconciled with science. My opponent fails to address the sources showing that science doesn't concern itself with supernatural explanations of the cosmos. I would like to ask for one credible scientific source which outlines within the scientific method the need to dispel any ancient myths.
Sources:
1. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
2. http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/natural-medicine/alternative/prayer-healing1.htm
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/why-people-who-pray-are-heathier_b_1197313.html
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-22 06:12:28
| Speak Roundergodicsum (CON). My position so far has been that there are religious beliefs that do conflict with science. Hence we cannot make a blanketed statement that states that religion does not conflict with science. We have to look at a specific religious belief to determine if it conflicts with science or not. I gave 4 examples of such religious beliefs. My opponent doesn't disagree that there isn't a conflict between and 3 of these beliefs and in the last example it seems that my opponent agrees with me that the religious account of species creation conflicts with the scientific account. I believe that my examples still stand as examples of religious beliefs that conflict with science because they refer to descriptions of the natural world, something that is in the realm of science.
My opponent has certain issues with each of my examples. I will address the points he makes noting that the issues he raises don't detract from my position that these beliefs are in conflict with current scientific findings.
1) My opponent states that I ignore the source demonstrating that these groups are making these claims on the basis of divine revelation not by scientific findings. This is rather odd since the source he cites is the Wikipedia article on creationism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism. If you go to this article and search for the word revelation you will only find one instance of the word in the article under the section of Ahmadiyya, which is an Islamic religious movement. I'm assuming that my opponent believes that the believers of these religious beliefs, believe them because they think they were revealed to them through divine revelation. That might be why some of them believe them, however my point doesn't deal with the reasons for the belief, my point deals with the content of the belief. The belief that the earth as we know it was formed 6000 years ago and that species didn't form through the process of natural selection. How they arrived at these beliefs could be a different topic of discussion, however the beliefs as they stand deal with the same topics as geology, paleontology, and evolutionary theory. The beliefs are not consistent with our current understanding of those sciences.
2) In regards to prayer my opponent makes two points. First that I don't cite any sources about the doctrinal beliefs I claimed about prayer, and second that showing that prayer has no effect on healing doesn't conflict with science.
a) I am not sure if my opponent is referring to example 2 or 3 of prayer. I did give a source that shows the doctrinal beliefs of prayer in the Christian Science church. In my third example I even quoted the wikipedia article on the doctrinal beliefs of the Christian Science church when it comes to prayer and healing. I will go a little further here by linking to the original source where wikipedia got it from here (1). This is a letter to the editor of the New York Times from the chairwoman of the Christian Science board of directors.
In terms of doctrinal beliefs of intercessory prayer he is correct in that I did not cite any sources that show that certain Christian denominations have this view of prayer. I will cite these sources here. This article (2) alludes to "A Handbook of Catholic Sacramentals" and states:
the practice of lighting candles in order to obtain some favor probably has its origins in the custom of burning lights at the tombs of the martyrs in the catacombs. The lights burned as a sign of solidarity with Christians still on earth. Because the lights continually burned as a silent vigil, they became known as vigil lights.
This article from a Catholic devotional magazine (3) talks about how to pray for physical healing. This article is specifically claiming that in there experience there exists a correlation of 80% between prayer and healing.
I have missionary friends who are teaching the poor people of the barrios of Latin America to pray for the sick, and they report that about eighty percent of these unlettered people are healed or notably improved.
This article is from another Christian group (4) which states that not praying for others deprives them of a blessing.
All of these articles show that there is the belief in some denominations that there is a correlation between prayer and healing.“When you neglect to pray for the sick, you deprive them of great blessings; for angels of God are waiting to minister to these souls in response to your petitions....”
My opponent makes the point that if prayer doesn't always work we shouldn't say that never works. That is why I an the researchers concentrated on correlation, they didn't expect the correlation to be 100%. They just expected it to be there. My claim is that the belief is that there is a correlation when through observation we can see that there is no correlation. How can the two statements "there is a correlation"(the religious belief) and "there is no correlation"(the scientific study) be consistent?
3) I think my opponent might be agreeing that there is a conflict between the two accounts of the creation of species as described by the Hindu myth and the modern scientific description of species creation. He believes that this is a result of different way of thinking, which I agree. Ancient people did not have the scientific thinking tools or the philosophical underpinnings we currently have, we should not expect them to think the same way. However, the question at hand is "Does science and religion conflict." Whatever the mechanism is for that conflict is a different topic of discussion.
In the last two sentences my opponent seems to misunderstand my position.
My position is not and has never been that the role of science is to dispel ancient myths. Evolutionary biology, paleontology and geology are simply concerned with understanding and obtaining the best possible models of how species formed, and what changes occurred to our planet in the ancient past. A side effect of this might be that an ancient myth is dispelled because more data and observations show that the account of the myth cannot be true. He also claims that I failed to address the sources that show that science doesn't concerned itself with supernatural explanations of the cosmos. This is simply a false statement since I agreed that science doesn't study the supernatural. However, the origins of animal species and the age of the earth are not supernatural and so since can study those things.My opponent fails to address the sources showing that science doesn't concern itself with supernatural explanations of the cosmos. I would like to ask for one credible scientific source which outlines within the scientific method the need to dispel any ancient myths.
Conclusion:
As I have stated above, my main position is that there are examples of religious beliefs conflicting with science. It seems that my opponent even agrees that one of my examples is a conflict, but dismisses it. Not all religious beliefs conflict with science, however, some do. Hence we cannot make the generalization that science doesn't conflict with religion.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/opinion/l27christian.html?_r=0
2) http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-do-catholics-light-prayer-candles.html
3) https://wau.org/resources/article/re_how_to_pray_for_physical_healing
4)http://www.path2prayer.com/article/13/healing-prayer-fasting
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-22 08:37:04
| Speak RoundIsaiah Smith (PRO)" My opponent argues that the reasons for belief are irrelevant and distinguishes that from the actual claim. I will demonstrate why religion does not conflict with science from previous sources.
1) This is taken from the wiki article "Creationism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
"Creationism is the belief that the universe and life originate from specific acts of divine creation."
As we can see, divine creation is already the basis for creationism. From the section "Early and medieval days", people once again believed creationism to be divinely inspired.
"Origen believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God.."
In "Impact of the Reformation" once again we see the concept of divine revelation as the grounds for belief in a literal creation.
"Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these biological species were created by God."
In "Young Earth creationism", it says the following:
"Young Earth creationists believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years.."
This is taken from an earlier source:
"Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."
Is there really a conflict between the big bang theory, the theory of evolution, and what we know? Let's examine each theory.
1. Big bang - The big bang theory focuses on the expansion of the universe, not on the cause.
"Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe." (1)
Does the big bang conflict with the creationist belief that God caused the universe to come into being? No, why not? Because God is outside of science and the big bang does not describe the origins of the cosmos.
2. Evolution - The theory of evolution isn't concerned with the origins of life either, but rather how life gradually changed over time.
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)." Does evolution conflict with the belief that God literally made man in Genesis? No, why not? Because evolution describes how life changed not it's origins.
It is the same for all scientific theories. As explained earlier, scientific theories are not absolute while religious beliefs are interpreted to be absolute if they are products of divine revelation. It makes no difference if creationists believe the earth to be only a thousand years old because the basis of belief is grounded on divine revelation. If science isn't absolute then it can always leave open a supernatural explanation.
Regarding intercessory prayer, my opponent commits confirmation bias (2). He cites an experiment where there is no correlation between healing and intercessory prayer but ignores my previous source where there is a link (3). He quotes from a Catholic devotional magazine that there is a correlation between praying and healing but there is no such thing mentioned in the article. It is simply based on a personal faith-based experience which isn't scientific. Once they make a scientific claim, it can be conducted for research.
"My position is not and has never been that the role of science is to dispel ancient myths. Evolutionary biology, paleontology and geology are simply concerned with understanding and obtaining the best possible models of how species formed, and what changes occurred to our planet in the ancient past. A side effect of this might be that an ancient myth is dispelled because more data and observations show that the account of the myth cannot be true. He also claims that I failed to address the sources that show that science doesn't concerned itself with supernatural explanations of the cosmos. This is simply a false statement since I agreed that science doesn't study the supernatural. However, the origins of animal species and the age of the earth are not supernatural and so since can study those things."
Con claims that his position isn't that science dispels ancient myths, but his logic affirms otherwise. He argues that a side effect of studying evolutionary biology, paleontology, and geology is that these may dispel ancient myths which contradicted his statement "My position is not and has never been that the role of science is to dispel ancient myths." He cites no scientific sources demonstrating that myths can be dispelled by current scientific findings.
Sources:
1. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory.htm
2. http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
3. http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/natural-medicine/alternative/prayer-healing1.htm
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-27 07:28:53
| Speak Roundergodicsum (CON)Creationism
This confusion might be caused by existence of different types of creationism. My opponent quotes the beginning of the Wikipedia article, but if we continue reading the article, we can see the different types of creationism (1). In the table in Wikipedia we can see that Young Earth Creationists believe that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years and that biological species were directly created by God, and that Macro-evolution does not occur. These are the religious beliefs that my example dealt with. These religious beliefs conflict with the scientific view that evolution through natural selection did occur and that the age of the earth is billions of years.
Prayer
In regards to prayer my opponent makes two points. First, that I ignored the linked article he provided, and second, that in the Catholic devotional magazine correlation was not mentioned.
1. How Stuff Works Article
My opponent is correct that I did not addressed the article he linked to so I will address it here. When looking at effects in medicine, we cannot go with one study, we have to look at several studies that reproduce the results. While it is true that in the Byrd study, a significant difference was found between the two groups, if we continue to read the same article, we can read about two other studies mentioned in the article that did not find the same results that bird claimed to have found. The STEP study published in 2006 and the Duke study published in 2005 did not find a significant difference.
2. Catholic devotional magazine
Initially my opponent said that I did not cite a source which explicitly states the doctrinal beliefs of a Christian denomination. I cited several sources on Catholic Doctrine as well as sources on Christian Science doctrine and how this shows that there exists religious beliefs that intercessory prayer can have an effect the sick. He only seems to disagree with my commentary on the Catholic devotional magazine. I made the claim that the article "specifically claim[s] that in there exists a correlation of 80% between prayer and healing". Here is the quote I used to support my argument(2):
In other words the article is claiming that 80% of the people prayed for, healed or improved. While the word "correlation" was not used in the article, we can translate it into the language of statistics. The article is encouraging people to pray for the sick because according to his missionary friends, being prayed for has a success rate of 80%. This is creating a link between prayer and healing. In the language of statistics, how strong a a link is between two events, can be given a numerical value or correlation. From the medical dictionary(3) we see that a correlation tells us how well one phenomena can be predicted from another phenomena in a data set. In this case using the language of statistics, we can rephrase what they article says. The article is claiming that when they observed that prayer happened in a sick individual, there would be an 80% chance that the person would be healed.I have missionary friends who are teaching the poor people of the barrios of Latin America to pray for the sick, and they report that about eighty percent of these unlettered people are healed or notably improved.
Hindu Creation Myth
1) Role of Science
In round 3 my opponent asked for the following:
This seems to indicate that he thinks that I believe that there is a need in science to dispel ancient myths. In other words, he seems to think that I believe that one of the goals of science is to dispel any ancient myths and asks me to provide scientific evidence for it. My position is not that there is a need for science to dispel ancient myths. Hence I replied with the following:I would like to ask for one credible scientific source which outlines within the scientific method the need to dispel any ancient myths.
My position is not and has never been that the role of science is to dispel ancient myths.
My opponent then replied to this by saying:
Con claims that his position isn't that science dispels ancient myths.
However, that is not my position, my position is that Science and some ancient myths, conflict. There is a big difference between the goal of science and something that science might do or have an effect on. For example, when scientists were beginning to study electricity and magnetism, their goal was not create telephones and computers. However, the telephones and computers were a direct result of the scientific discoveries.
2) Conflicts
My opponent claims that I have not cited scientific sources that demonstrate that myths can be dispelled by current scientific findings. This is not the point of the debate. I did not bring this example as evidence that an ancient myth has been dispelled. I brought it up as evidence that science and some religious beliefs conflict. Both, the Hindu religious belief of the story of Prajapati and science, deal with the origin of species. Their descriptions of the origin of species are not consistent, and my opponent has not shown how this specific religious belief is consistent with scientific description of the origin of species. The religious belief says that Prajapati changing form and mating with his female form gave origin to different animal species. The scientific account states that the origin of species was due to natural selection over billions of years. These two are not consistent.
Conclusion:
We see that religions don't just make claims about the supernatural. They also make claims about the natural world. It is when this intersection happens, that we in some cases, see conflicts between science and religion. In the example of creationist beliefs about the natural world, and christian science, and catholic beliefs about correlation between prayer and healing, and in the description of the origin of species in a Hinduism.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism
2) https://wau.org/resources/article/re_how_to_pray_for_physical_healing3) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/correlation
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-02-03 16:32:47
| Speak RoundIsaiah Smith (PRO)""There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of my opponent.My example did not deal with the cause of the big bang or the cause of life on earth. There is currently no scientific evidence for the cause of the universe or the cause of life on earth. There are many hypothesis, but science waits until there is repeatable evidence. My example dealt with the age of the earth and evolution by natural selection. It is a common misconception that evolution deals with the cause of life on earth. Evolution only deals with how species diversity came to be on earth.
This confusion might be caused by existence of different types of creationism. My opponent quotes the beginning of the Wikipedia article, but if we continue reading the article, we can see the different types of creationism (1). In the table in Wikipedia we can see that Young Earth Creationists believe that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years and that biological species were directly created by God, and that Macro-evolution does not occur. These are the religious beliefs that my example dealt with. These religious beliefs conflict with the scientific view that evolution through natural selection did occur and that the age of the earth is billions of years."
My opponent claims that there is a misunderstanding however he ignores the implications of a first cause to the universe. If indeed the cause of the universe by divine intervention is justified then our current scientific findings are wrong and no contradiction is found between science and religion. He points out the young earth creationists doctrine but that's just a matter of belief, not a scientific hypothesis. In fact, there is biblical evidence to support that this wasn't what ancient peoples believed.
1) The Bible gives no record of how old the earth is - On the contrary, the genealogical record found in Genesis isn't complete. The only genealogies that are recorded are those vital to tracing ancestral lineage (1).
2) The Bible supports natural selection and macroevolution - Although the Bible may not use scientific taxonomy or biology to explain it, the Hebrews recognized that there are variations of a species (2).
While the young creationist beliefs are justifiable from a philosophical view, they only contradict with a proper biblical interpretation. Did ancients accept the young creationist doctrine? No, therefore there is no conflict between science and religion as a whole.
Prayer:
1. HowStuffWorksArticle:
My opponent ignores what i stated in round 3. In order for there to be no correlation between prayer and healing, results must be conclusive which is the opposite of what we find. Because there is at least one experiment showing there is a correlation, the evidence is inconclusive (3).
2. CatholicDevotionalMagazine:
My opponent falsely claims that the Magazine used statistics. Using statistics consists of more than just stating a percentage, it involves experimental design, survey sampling, data analysis, and experimentation which is something that the Magazine never did (4). The use of percentage was very informal and did not refer to a proper methodology.
3. Ancient myths:
My opponent has simply changed his claim and the logic behind it. In Round 1, he brings up the Hindu myth of creation then states "This again conflicts with the current theory of evolution through natural selection." He then sees no reason for why the ancient myths do not conflict with science in Round 2. He states the following:
"I understand that ancient people thought differently than us, but the fact that they thought differently, doesn't imply that their beliefs about how the world works, don't conflict with science."
By thinking differently and science being innovated until thousands of years later, both mindsets are irreconcilable with each other. In the Wikipedia article called "Mythology", there are various ways to interpret myths but none are meant to be taken as literal and objective history (5). Myths are stories by specific groups of people.
My opponent has never stated in any rounds before the 4th that "my position is that Science and some ancient myths, conflict." He then claims that science has an effect on dispelling ancient myths but presents no credible scientist who draws such a conclusion. We do however see that it is a mindset found in skepticism (6) which is a belief system rather than a practical method to dispel myths contradicting with current theories.
Sources:
1. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html
2. http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html#BibleVerses1
3. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_10
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Origins
6. http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-02-04 08:39:15
| Speak Roundergodicsum (CON)Creationism:
My opponent gives reasons for why the biblical interpretation of the creationists is not supported by the bible. However, this is missing the point. The debate was framed as a generalization. "Science doesn't conflict with religion." I have stated and alluded that not all religious beliefs conflict with science, but that some do. Specifically, the religious belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old and that evolution did not happen, are religious beliefs that conflict with science. Not all religious people hold these beliefs, but some do, hence we cannot make a generalization and conclude that "Science doesn't conflict with religion."
My opponent also makes two logical fallacies. He states
I'm assuming that my opponent is proposing that perhaps in the future, there might be scientific evidence for a divine cause of the universe and in that time, science and religion would not conflict concerning the origin of the universe.If indeed the cause of the universe by divine intervention is justified then our current scientific findings are wrong and no contradiction is found between science and religion.
1) I never brought up the cause of the universe. My example has been about the age of the earth and evolution.
2) Science's stance on the cause of the universe has not ruled out a power being as the cause of the universe. Science's stance on the cause of the universe is "We cannot know given the information we have." Hence science cannot be wrong because science is not making a claim.
3) We are not debating a hypothetical future, we are debating about the current state of science and religion.
My opponent also goes on to say:
He points out the young earth creationists doctrine but that's just a matter of belief, not a scientific hypothesis.
Prayer:
Conclusive vs Inconclusive in Science
Conclusive vs Inconclusive in Science
My opponent tries to make the claim that one positive study in favor of intercessory prayer is enough show that results are inconclusive. Whatever our opinions are on prayer, this is wrong. We have to look at several studies and average what the results of those studies would be(1). The results of one specific study might be due to sloppy methods, statistical divergence from the mean or even fraudulence.
If we continue to read the article that my opponent provided from the University of Berkeley we can see that a big component of the scientific endeavor is replication (3). It is not logical to think that one study has enough power to overturn several other studies performed later trying to replicate the results of the original study. Here is a quote from the resource that my opponent himself provided:
The desire for replicability is part of the reason that scientific papers almost always include a methods section, which describes exactly how the researchers performed the study. That information allows other scientists to replicate the study and to evaluate its quality, helping ensure that occasional cases of fraud or sloppy scientific work are weeded out and corrected.
Here is a meta study on intercessory prayer which looks at 13 studies (2). The conclusion drawn by the researchers after comparing the results of the studies on equal grounds is:
We see in these studies that as better methodology is used and more studies are taken into account. The effects of intercessory prayer are not observed. Yet the proponents of intercessory prayer claim very large percentages of correlation, up to 80%.There is no scientifically discernible effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.
Catholic Devotional Magazine:
I challenge my opponent to find a quote from me, where I stated that the magazine used statistics. I claimed that their language implies a correlation of 80%. Their claim was that 80% of the people prayed for. In statistics, we have another word for this "a strong correlation." In round 4 I stated that we can translate what the magazine article claimed to the language of statistics. However, please find the quote where I stated the the magazine used statistics.
Ancient Religious Beliefs:
My opponent claims that I'm changing my claim. I failed to this since my claim is that the religious belief of the origin of species by Prahapati is inconsistent with the scientific view that evolution through natural selection is responsible for the origin of species. That is still my claim. Now, my opponent brings up that people in the past, didn't have modern science and thought differently from us. To that, I said that I agree, but that doesn't imply that the two accounts, the scientific account and the religious Prahapati account, don't conflict.
My claim that the two accounts conflict and my belief that ancient people didn't have modern science are not two inconsistent views. The reason this even came up was because my opponent brought it, I'm assuming to explain to us why they differ, which ironically, implies that he must agree that the two accounts are not consistent.
My opponent even goes on to say the following:
By thinking differently and science being innovated until thousands of years later, both mindsets are irreconcilable with each other.
I think this makes it very clear that even my opponent agrees that the account of the origin of species in the religious belief that it was Prahapati conflicts with the current scientific account of the origin of species.
My opponent the claims that myths are stories but none are meant to be taken as literal.
Who is taking the "myth" as literal? The creators of the myth? The people who transmitted the myth? Today we classify certain stories as myths because we see that they are probably not literal factual descriptions of the world. However, many of these myths were believed as truth to ancient people. If my opponent thinks that the people who transmitted these stories didn't literally believe they were factual, then I ask him to provide some evidence for that. What makes us today think that these stories are not factual? Current scientific understanding of the universe allows us to access the validity of some of these stories, something which the ancients didn't have.In the Wikipedia article called "Mythology", there are various ways to interpret myths but none are meant to be taken as literal and objective history (5). Myths are stories by specific groups of people.
My opponent says that I present no credible scientist that draws the conclusion that science has had an effect on dispelling ancient myths.
He then claims that science has an effect on dispelling ancient myths but presents no credible scientist who draws such a conclusion.
One of the reasons that is confusing the issue is that a myth is taken as something which is not true, a fictitious account. For example, modern scholars, take the view that the greek For centuries now, science has been showing that certain ancient beliefs were wrong. To claim that this is not the case is simply an ignorance of the history of science. Let me give you some examples of ideas that people in the past believed, which science showed were wrong.
1. People used to have the belief that diseases we caused by miasma or a type of "bad air" (4). Science showed that belief to be incorrect and that the real cause of disease are microscopic organisms or viruses. In the past people have had different beliefs on how species diversity came to be.
2. Some creationists believed that species were created by God as they are today, without species evolving into other species. Science has shown that this belief is wrong.(5)
3. Ancient Greeks used to believe that the universe was made of only 4 elements, earth, fire, water, air and that something moving could not continue to move unless a force kept pushing on it (6). Science showed that this beliefs were wrong.
4. Ancient Greeks and some medieval people believed that the earth was at the center of the universe and that all the celestial objects moved around the earth (Geocentricism). However, science showed that belief was wrong and that in reality the earth move around the sun. (7)
5. Ancient people used to think that epilepsy was people under the influence of the moon God or that it was caused by demons. Science has shown that it is not that, but rather a neurological condition.(8)
Here is a credible scientists (Neil deGrasse Tyson) who acknowledges that myths can be broken by our modern understanding of science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqUTiOyLYV0
Not all myths start out as being myths. Some myths were believed to be true descriptions of reality. Then as we learned more and gathered more information, as a civilization we saw that these stories could not be true accounts of reality, and we downgraded these stories to the status of myth.
Scientific Skepticism
My opponent claims that Scientific Skepticism is a belief system rather than a practical method to dispel myths.
We do however see that it is a mindset found in skepticism (6) which is a belief system rather than a practical method to dispel myths contradicting with current theories.
This is again, off topic. My opponent seems to think that Scientific Skepticism is not a practical method to dispel myths. That is interesting debate topic in itself, however, the debate is not what is the best way to dispel myths. The debate is does religion and science conflict.
Conclusion:
I have presented some religious beliefs which are incompatible with science. My opponent has not shown that these religious beliefs are compatible with science.
Sources:
1. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16827626
3. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_17
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
5.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
8.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy#History
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-02-11 10:46:56
| Speak Round
Judge: admin
Blackflag
Judge: dsjpk5
Judge: Silver Crow
Judge: TheNoob
Judge: 2001bhu
Judge: ButterCatx
Judge: RXR.
Judge: Chuz Life
I'll judge tonight. Kudos on the great debate guys. Posted 2015-02-12 05:49:53
This looks like a super interesting debate. Will read it / judge soon.Posted 2015-02-11 16:01:37