Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism

Im beginning to regret typing that....I realize that there are scientific studies that can show how, when and why faith and religion has come to be a part of human behavior.What I am interested in is how a model such as science that is based on falsifiable evidence can have anything to do with something as unfalsifiable as faith based assertions such as the existance of a god.Science can show evidence of the big bang by mapping CBR but that does not disprove someone having faith that a god created the big bang. Science does not care what someone believes. It only cares that it is accurate and verifable and sound in its reproducible results and conclusions. Or not I dont know now.Edited by 1.61803, : redundant

Science cannot make a categorical statement that God does not exist. If someone wants to believe in a supernatural being that does not intervene in any natural processes, I doubt that many scientists would object. Science and religion come into conflict when religions make assertions about how the world works. That’s why your frog god was a bad example: the frog-god worshippers were using their god to explain a natural phenomenon. Beliefs about the natural world are not privileged because they are based on blind faith. And just because some believers won’t accept well-confirmed scientific theories about certain natural phenomena, that doesn’t mean science has nothing to say about those phenomena or about the phenomenon of irrational belief.Fortunately, many major religions have figured this out. They accept science’s explanations of the material world and focus their attention on their flocks’ immaterial souls.

If your sole and single point is to say that science cannot disprove the existence of gods then why don’t you just say that and be done? There is plenty of scientific evidence on which to conclude that belief based on no evidence will be pointlessly unreliable and almost certainly wrong. There is a great deal of scientific evidence upon which to conclude that gods are human inventions.Do you dispute this? And yet when asked specifically what "matters of faith" it is that science must be silent upon you suddenly forget the statement you made above and start demanding outright falsification. Can you scientifically disprove the existence of a big blonde ethereal viking called Thor who causes thunder by bashing his godly hammer around? Has the notion that Thor causes lightening and thunder been refuted to all practical intents and purposes?Why do you think disproving things has any bearing on what science can or cannot commnent upon?

1) You have now changed your argument from "matters of faith" which can be literally anything regardless of falsifiability to "something as unfalsifiable as god" which is slightly different.You have, as expected, jumped onto the unfalsifiability wagon.2) We don't need to falsify things to come to mutually exclusive conclusions. Do I need to prove that pissing angels are not the cause of raindrops in order to conclude that all raindrops come from clouds? Do I need to falsify the existence of gods to conclude that all gods are human inventions?Can you falsify omphalism? How old is the Earth?

I certainly appreciate you thoughtful response. This is something that has indeed gave me pause for thought.
Proof is a function of math and evidence is a function of science.
I believe it was Stephan Gould who was of the opinion that science "cannot yield values and religion doesnt yield emprical truths". I am reexamining my views concerning this.
Best regards

Wah, what a cry baby. I reach for falsification and you throw a temper tantrum. You know I only did it to piss you off.

There is scientific evidence that shows how brain trauma such as seizures has brought about beliefs in god/s.Source: The Temporal Lobes and GodI wouldn't say it is wrong, per se, but it does prove that their belief is not based on faith, but on head trauma.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I think you’re attempting to take a specific aspect of religion (faith) and inflating it to give religion in general some magical armor against rationality.Rarely are matters of faith exclusively delegated to some spiritual realm. Once faith intrudes impinges on reality then it opens itself up to scrutiny. No one has to buy into, Every time I pray it rains gold coins at my feet and you shouldn’t use science to check out this claim since it is based on faith.

I am not "pissed off".I am just dismayed by the inadequacy of your ever changing arguments.So is it now "matters of faith" or is it "something as unfalsifiable as god" on which you are asserting that science must stay silent?Or are you conflating the two on the erroneous assumption that all "matters of faith" pertain to unfalsifiable things?Whichever of the above I will be delighted to explain to you why you are wrong. (**Straggler pops a pacifier into 1.61803's open mouth**)

I wondered when we would get to Gould and his "Non Overlapping Magisteria".Science cannot yield values but nor are values unique to faith or religion. So if you want to say "science is silent upon moral values" you might have a point. But that is not the same as "science is silent on matters of faith" at all. Unless you think all moral values are derived from faith rather than reason?Even having said that science can certainly tell us what our natural proclivites are and how difficult or easy it is likely to be to implement certain moral values. It just cannot tell us what these moral values should be. A good idea. Because thus far they have been very confused indeed.

Interesting article. The PET scan maps the brian, the physiology of the human body operates in accordance to the laws of nature. Yes I get that.Faith and religion are real. And Science will research anything that is real. Bluegenes statement was spot on.I am now in a better understanding of what all of you have been saying. Which is one reason I like this board. Edited by 1.61803, : word article added.

I was reading it on the interwebz. I kept finding apologist though. agreed. Thats for sure.