The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

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!

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[dan pasare]

I should better say "religious experience" instead of "religious belief".

If you look at the Universe at a whole and at how it cause and effect are what gives solutions to evolutionary problems there's no reason to not say that Universe has an intrinsic intelligence. This intelligence is not anthropomorphic. It is very difficult to think of intelligence intrinsically related to humans but with the advent of computer technology we can make distinctions between different types of intelligence.

[dan pasare]

"I have the same 'perception of non existence of a deity' as you have for Thor, Zeus etc." That's exactly what I am implying. Although Thor and Zeus are an archaic form of perception of existence God. We know that human brain has evolved for religious belief. You can only use science to prove what God is not but you cannot prove there's no God. Same way you can say what color blue is not but cannot say color blue does not exists just because you can't perceive it.

[al jones]

p1. I'm aware of the difference between the subjective 'feeling' of blue and a scientific definition of what blue light is. I am simply stating that we can relate the feeling of blue to a scientifically demonstrable reality. You seem to think that having a 'feeling of a deity' means the deity is real. That would imply all deities that have been sensed are real. I have the same 'perception of non existence of a deity' as you have for Thor, Zeus etc.

[dan pasare]

You are still confusing blue with the physical wavelength. Blue forms only inside the brain most commonly when a certain wavelength triggers it. But there are cases where perception of blue (or whatever color) is triggered by other means like in cases of synesthesia where there is no such information as color.

Light does not have an inherent color to it before it hits the eye.

Your perception of non existence of God is no more than just that: a perception, - or lack of it.

[al jones]

Someone without colour vision would not be able to have the subjective 'feeling' of blue . but I would be able to demonstrate that what is defined as 'blue' actually exists. We can't see UV light but butterflies can, UV light is still a physically demonstrable type of em radiation. It exists in the real world. Your perception of a subjective 'essence' of your particular idea of a deity does not make it any more real than the vast pantheon of other imagined deities throughout history.

[dan pasare]

I am not interested in the physicality of God because every time you frame God in a finite "box" you loose perspective of the essence what God is. I am more interested in defining God as a result of subjective processes of identifying meaning of existence itself, meaning that scientifically cannot be identified.

[dan pasare]

Do not confuse the explanation of "how" you perceive blue to "why" you perceive blue.

Blue is not the electromagnetic wavelength. Blue is a pure human subjective response to a specific wavelength. Try to explain scientifically color blue to a person that does not have the receptors for color blue. It will be a futile exercise even as a thought process.

"Imagined deities" - You keep relaying on a framing of God in a way that has already been proven does not exist.

[dan pasare]

Part 2:

So here is the true nature of the debate (in my view):

Thesit: "I like blue and I insist you should like it too." And in some cases: "because if you don't like blue, such and such might happen."

Atheist: "I don't like blue, you should not like nor believe blue exists because blue is not real. I have scientific proof that blue is only in your head."

[dan pasare]

If you define Yaweh in terms of Greek mythology of course Gods like that do not exist. You have to look at existence itself as a whole as being alive and purposeful to begin to define what is God. Only on these terms you can discuss God. If you bring science into the discussion regarding the existence of God is like building an advanced physical structure to prove music does not exist. You can only prove how music is not although some may find musicality in physical structures -synesthesia.