• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are all of "mainstream" science's beliefs justified?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Me too. It just intrigues me that so much of the info and knowledge acquired is, given the standard in "the epistemology of religion" portion of my OP, "unjustified belief."

I think much of it depends on how something is expressed. There's a world of difference between someone saying "I think this may be true but I'm not entirely sure" versus "I know this is true with absolute 100% certainty."

I tend to have more respect for those who express some measure of doubt, as opposed to the "true believers" who are absolutely certain they are 100% correct - or at least try to give off the appearance of such (mainly out of reasons of pride or ego).
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
What comes to mind is dark matter and dark energy. These two things have never been directly seen in the lab, to make sure they are actually real and not just imaginary. They are inferred from secondary affects, but not from primary evidence.

This works the same way as proving God. We cannot proven God in the lab any better than we can prove dark energy and dark matter in the lab. The faithful infer God through various secondary affects, such as the beauty of nature. But God is dismissed based on only using second hand inference, while dark matter and dark energy get a pass via a dual standard.
They’re not really comparable in how they’re treated though.

Nobody asserts that dark matter unquestionably exists and that anyone who doesn’t believe in it is condemned to an eternity of suffering. The very first writings about dark matter aren’t deemed immutable and unquestionably true (even the bits that contradict the other bits ;) ). I’m not expected to worship dark matter or have it guide my life. We don’t have any war or terrorism because one group of people believe in a slightly different kind of dark matter to another group of people. And nobody demands special treatment under the law because dark matter tells them homosexuals shouldn’t get married. :cool:
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Can anyone think of a claim/proposition/sentence that is believed to be true in mainstream science without evidence/justification for that claim/proposition/sentence?

  • "Mainstream science" defined:
    • "Mainstream science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that does not depart significantly from orthodox theories. In the philosophy of science, mainstream science is an area of scientific endeavor that has left the process of becoming established. New areas of scientific endeavor still in the process of becoming established are generally labelled protoscience or fringe science. A definition of mainstream in terms of protoscience and fringe science can be understood from the following table:
    • View attachment 33362
    • By its standard practices of applying good scientific methods, mainstream is distinguished from pseudoscience as a demarcation problem and specific types of inquiry are debunked as junk science, cargo cult science, scientific misconduct, etc.
    • Source: Mainstream - Wikipedia
  • Evidentialism and Justified Belief, in the context of Religion
    • 'Evidentialism’ refers to "the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if 'it is proportioned to the evidence'. Evidentialism implies that it is not justified to have a full religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for it.
      • It follows that if the known arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having full belief that there is a God." [Source: Forrest, Peter. (2009). "The epistemology of religion."]
  • My understanding is that "mainstream science" consists of information and/or knowledge which is supported, i.e. justified, by a proportionate amount of evidence greater than zero evidence.
  • My question, again, is this: Can anyone think of a claim/proposition/sentence that is believed to be true in mainstream science without evidence/justification for that claim/proposition/sentence?
  • NOTA BENE:
    1. Anyone who brings "the Flat Earth Theory" and/or "Creationism" into this thread goes onto my "Ignore" list and should be put on everyone else's too.
    2. Anyone who wants to nit-pick my words above and avoid answering my question and satisfying my curiosity can join the #1s on my "Ignore" list.

In the realm of science, HYPOTHESIS is a better word than claim/proposition/belief because it is the antecedent to all of them;

Definition of hypothesis

2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
In the realm of science, HYPOTHESIS is a better word than claim/proposition/belief because it is the antecedent to all of them;

I can acknowledge that hypotheses are the antecedents of claims, propositions, and beliefs. But--and here, you're gonna have to help me out--if you concede that beliefs (or claims or propositions) are as defined in the video in my post #13, about what is true, then, IMO, hypotheses don't have the weight or force that beliefs do.

Hmmm, ... just this minute this occurred to me: In science, " an unjustified belief is a hypothesis" and "a hypothesis is an unjustified belief". Whaddya think? With evidence, a hypothesis crosses the threshold and a justified belief is born.

???
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I can acknowledge that hypotheses are the antecedents of claims, propositions, and beliefs. But--and here, you're gonna have to help me out--if you concede that beliefs (or claims or propositions) are as defined in the video in my post #13, about what is true, then, IMO, hypotheses don't have the weight or force that beliefs do.

Hmmm, ... just this minute this occurred to me: In science, " an unjustified belief is a hypothesis" and "a hypothesis is an unjustified belief". Whaddya think? With evidence, a hypothesis crosses the threshold and a justified belief is born.

???

A hypothesis is not a belief. It is a suggestion that needs further investigation. The suggestion arises from an observation.
 
Top