Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


SCIENCE CONTRADICTS GOD BELIEF BY ASSUMING THAT GOD CAN BE HYPOTHETICALLY DISPROVED

If science is about a truthful method for finding truth then science is a part of God if God is all about truth.

God, if God is the ultimate reality and the being that ultimately alone matters and the truth that alone matters, is in opposition to the hypothetical. God has to be real in every world you can imagine or every possible world. He has to be God in every possible scenario to be God.  If he is not then he is not as important as he says he is. Or as important as you say he is.  He is a brute fact at best but that does not make him the absolute being.

If there were a hypothetical way to refute God, it would need to be as good as God or better to stand up to the idea of God.

Science says it opposes God if there is some way, hypothetically, to disprove him.

Science can be neutral but that means it is open both to affirming God exists or debunking God.  Science is not science if it is about trying to find God.  It seeks to learn for learning's own sake not God's sake.  If science is atheistic, this will not affect its success for it puts learning first anyway.  And it is about learning for its own sake not God's so even if the atheism is unspoken it is there.  Atheism that is unspoken can in this sense be atheism that is so sure that it does bother saying anything. 

If God alone matters then ignoring him is not ignoring him but excluding him.

God has not set up science to include him.  That is odd.  It makes no sense.  It would be a lie for God is in everything and is everywhere. God setting anything up to exclude him or to ignore him makes science as in caring about learning not him to be a tacit argument against God in itself.  It does not even need to worry about evidence but it should anyway.

There could be hypothetical ways to disprove God we have not even thought of. We donít need evidence to know that there has to be.

Religion says that science compliments it. Needless to say science does not care if it fits religion or not. Religion usually says that science is about the physical and religion is about the non-physical. That gets around a problem. The problem is how science finds no evidence for God and contrary to putting God first, is not about the love of God. It is not science that finds this a problem but religion. So it is religion that tells science that science is not its affair and yet it tells science that it is its business to tell it to keep out of the God subject! Religion commands science but science is not allowed to command religion! This is far from religion and science working in separate fields. It is religion being one-sided. It tells science what is off limits for science and tells science not to tread in its space. Yet in telling science it is clear that it is treading in scienceís space.

Religion thinks it can keep science away from God by saying that God is non-physical.  That does not work if God's actions are on the physical and he leaves his mark.  Science does not need to find a lion to know there is a lion at large.  Religion is simply cheating.

Even if religion were able to keep God out of science, it does not get rid of the hypothetical.
If science could deal with a non-physical God, it is open to disproving him. Open. Hypothetical is a thought experiment. An attempt to put God beyond all disproof, even hypothetical, as religion does shows God is just an ideological tool for it. Religion is ideology.

Science is said to be about what you do not know. To be more precise science is about what you know so that you see what else you have to learn so you go off in search of it.  So science being about what you do not know does not mean what you know doesn't count.  That would be absurd. 

It may be pointed out that science is about knowing something Ė it is knowing how, not just that, there are things you donít know.  The how definitely does not think of God.

Is God to be counted as something science should search for on the basis that it does not know him?  Reality is science ignores God and does not search for him.  That means it sees no evidence from what it does know that he is real.

Christian faith is not about what you do not know but about claiming to know God in a kind of relationship.  Science is told to keep out of trying to find if there is a chemical or biological reason for your feelings about God.  If science is humble and avoids overreaching, faith is the antithesis of science.