tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8256931671182144472..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Science, Religion, and the RaptureAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34389286128243903252011-05-25T08:29:07.943-06:002011-05-25T08:29:07.943-06:00So far, religion has been unable to predict with a...So far, religion has been unable to predict with any accuracy better than random chance, often worse. <br /><br />Science has a pretty good track record of measurable, useful predictions. That's pretty much the whole idea of science: predictions based on observational and experimental data.<br /><br />Based on what astronomers have observed, a star like the sun is expected to go red giant in about 5-7 billion years from its current age. It's not a wild guess. It's based on observations of other stars and measurements of their composition, temperature, and size. Astronomers aren't just connecting dots to make pictures and labeling moon craters. <br /><br />Yes, it's an estimate, but it's far from useless if we want to be around as a species at that time. In a billion years, I hope we can narrow the window somewhat. In 4 billion, we better have figured out how to stop it or how to survive on other planets around other stars or it's going to be a bit late. <br /><br />In regards to religion making life 'better,' are there any examples where religion as improved human life where it has not also impoverished it? e.g. Religious art is a common example that's trotted out, but I'd counter that the destruction and censorship of art by religion is equal or greater.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22371625359966879042011-05-25T05:45:05.396-06:002011-05-25T05:45:05.396-06:00The "science allows for useful predictions&qu...The "science allows for useful predictions" was exemplified by a discussion of computers, not the death of the sun. You have shifted the context in order to shift the meaning.<br /><br />After establishing that science makes a huge number of useful predictions we can confirm or falisy, I go on to argue that the reliability of these predictions gives us reason to trust those predictions we cannot directly confirm or falsify - the death of the sun. This inference is quite different from drawing a number out of a hat and taking it on faith that the number of right.<br /><br />And the implication that religion has not made our life better is something that you assigned to me. "X made our life better" does not, in fact, imply "Things other than X have not made our life better." I never made that implication. You did, then assigned it to me, so as to write a criticism of something I did not say.<br /><br />My claim - the one I explicitly wrote in the post - is that religion, insofar as it deviates from science, utterly fails to provide us with useful predictions.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-46631638833699354912011-05-24T20:28:52.957-06:002011-05-24T20:28:52.957-06:00I'm conflicted because I'm an atheist and ...I'm conflicted because I'm an atheist and find religious predictions to be laughable. But I find your reasoning to be suspect.<br /><br />First, you offer that "science allows people to make useful predictions" followed with a prediction that the sun will die in 5-7 billion years. Far from useful, and frankly it's a prediction that we have to take on faith... none of us will be here to verify it.<br /><br />You also argue that science has made our lives better, implying that religion has not. Again, not a believer, but I think it's dishonest to suggest that religion has not made our lives better -- as a people and over the span of history.Eric Norenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14648635662703229678noreply@blogger.com