Believe It or Not

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not." I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

What I would say that is closest to your quoted sentence is that the difference between the belief in gods and angels and a belief in scientific principles is that the former is unjustified belief, and the latter justified.

there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.) Rather silly, right? Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.) Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

I don't make a distinction between scientific truth and religious truth. There is only truth, truth being the quality that facts possess, and facts being linguistic strings that accurately map a portion of reality. Reality is the collection of things and processes that actually exist and interactive with one another. If any of the world's religions can identify an aspect of reality that can be demonstrated to exist, then that religion has uncovered truth.

Notice also that religion and science use unrelated methods for deciding what is true, only one of which is valid in my estimation. I have no confidence in the output of any method that relies on faith, by which I mean religious type faith, or unjustified belief. Faith can't be a path to truth, since any idea or its polar opposite can be believed by faith even when the ideas are mutually exclusive, and at most only one can be true. This is the method that has generated so many contradictory religions, each claiming to have the truth. That's probably what you meant by religious truth, but I don't use that word to describe claims derived in that matter for reasons just given.

When one uses reason properly applied to all of the relevant evidence, one comes up with things like the periodic table of the elements. We have only one of them. You can call that scientific truth, but it's just truth to me.

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

That is the individual's belief set, but it is not necessarily all true. There is a place for subjective truth, but what makes it truth is that it is reproducibly observable to the individual. If I have discovered that I like coffee better than tea or that wool makes me itch, those are reproducible observations, but observable only to me. That's what I would mean by a personal or subjective truth.

Simply declaring something is true because you want it to be or it pleases you to think that it might be does not rise to the level of what I would call truth. That's more like hope which has been allowed to become belief, hope and belief being different things.

I think that we tend to get bogged down when using the word truth. People start looking for eternal principles that transcend experience. The refer to absolute truths and constant truths. I find none of that helpful.

Instead, I prefer what is sometimes empirical adequacy. If an idea works, keep it. If it doesn't modify it so that it does when possible, and toss it out when not. I happen to live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. We can call that a true statement if it turns out that walking three blocks west and five blocks south takes me to the pier, but what really matters is that the idea is useful for a particular purpose. It accounts for prior experience and can be used to control outcomes in the future in a way that wrong directions cannot.

If somebody wants to get into an arcane, sophistic argument about that not being a universal truth for whatever reason, I would lose interest.

 

[Native]

I understand what you're saying. However, I don't believe, in this case, that the whole (collective truth) is greater than the sum of its parts (individual truths). That's what I meant by a masquerade. When you put all these stories together, do you get The Story? No. You get a collection of (perhaps similar, perhaps not) stories.

Then again, I have often been accused of not seeing "the big picture".

As for mythological cosmology being more logical than scientific cosmology, I'm not so sure. Although it is true that the stories themselves have their own internal logic, which can sometimes only be understood when one understands the culture which produced them, many of them fail when objectively (oh, that word!) tested and observed.

OK, but when holding onto my example of the telling of the Sun and Moon in the cultural stories of creation, this is as objective as it get, don´t you agree?

And when we put all the human stories about the Sun and Moon together, I think we get THE STORY. And this also goes with the other parts of the common Stories of Creation, IMO.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your claim is rejected. Science is the search for and theories about things we hope for to be true. Science keeps on changing its claims due to the non-stop refinement of the search for truth. So, in no way is science true whether I believe it or not. But, we hope that it gets us closer to the truth over time.

i take a position in the middle. Science is not based on 'things we hope to be true.' The use of what is true and false should be used with caution in science, and I use them as to whether the facts for which science is based on are true or false and not whether the knowledge, theories nor hypothesis are true or false. Over time time things 'facts' considered true have since been found false, such as the claim that Piltdown man was a human ancestor, or a falsely constructed dinosaur with feathers found in China was once thought a true fossil has since been found to be false. Over time science has been found to be self correcting and weeding out fraud, and misconceptions as to what 'facts' were thought to be true.

The process is not based on 'hope,' but the cumulative knowledge of science that more closely relates to the reality of our physical existence. As a result of a history of research and evidence applying the scientific methods the science of evolution has been falsified and demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, It is clear that future information will refine and correct the science of evolution and not determine it flawed at its foundation.

 

[taykair]

Divine truth and our personal reality we call our truth are two different things.
Please don’t confuse them.

Divine truth never changes, our perception of truth changes constantly.

That being said I agree with your op.

Religion may occasionally contain a divine truth.
Science may as well.

As a person who seeks divine truth, I ask ‘what is their fruit?’.

I find the ‘fruit’ of religion has given us the dark ages, inquisitions, crusades, bigotry, intolerance, and a lot of hate.

The fruit of science as given us penicillin, airplanes, the internet, and millions of other wonders.

My opinion only.

I would never confuse divine truth and personal truth. First, because my personal truth is the only one I have and, second, I have no idea what divine truth is (not being divine myself).

As for "fruit": I think you are being a bit too selective at your particular farmer's market. There are those who can list only the positive aspects of religion (as well as only the negative products of science). You and I both know, however, that this is not just incomplete - it is misleading.

 

[taykair]

The difference would seem to be that different definitions of 'truth' are being used.

'Truth' is not a scientific term as such, and its use in logic and occasionally maths follows a secondary definition of 'truth' (that is, 'correctly derived according to the rules of the particular formal system').

The definition of truth I use is, 'Truth is correspondence with reality', usually called the 'correspondence' definition. And 'reality' here refers to the world external to the self, the world which the senses reveal to us, where things have objective existence and so exist independently of whether the concept of them is present in your brain or not.

In my view it's fair to use that definition in connection with science.

I've asked, on various occasions in these forums and threads, what definition of 'truth' my believing colloquist is using, but so far I haven't received a clear answer.
That comes down to the definition of truth you're using. After all, our understanding of what's true in reality is very usually the consensus of the best-informed experts at a particular time. So 'truth' isn't fixed; it changes as our understanding changes.

But at least in science it changes out in the open, according to a background of rules designed to maximize objectivity when we explore, describe, and seek to explain reality.

So to start with, I'd like to see a clear statement of the definition of 'truth' that believers use.

Good post.

You are correct that "truth is not a scientific term, as such". That's one of the reasons it bothers me when Neil deGrasse Tyson says, "The good thing about science is that it's true, whether you believe in it or not." (Yes, Sunstone, I finally found a quote. And there have been many others who have said and written the same kind of thing.) Another reason it bothers me is because it comes across as a not-so-subtle way of saying, "You're just an ignorant religious fanatic. I know better."

About your definition of truth: Correspondence theory (truth is correspondence with reality) has always struck me as sounding like "Truth is true". I'm not sure it really means anything, if you know what I mean. Also, is reality "the world which the senses reveal" or is it independent of "the concept of them"? I seem to be reading both into your definition, but I could be wrong (and often am).

 

[taykair]

Ergo my continuous mantra:
"Everyone has to find their own truth".

Just think: I have wasted all those words trying to say something, when you've managed to say it with only seven.

 

[Quintessence]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

Sounds like something an adherent of scientism would say, because it's a misrepresentation of what the sciences actually do. Believers in scientism tend to interpret science as prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Furthermore, in order for something to be true within scientism, it must be supported by the sciences and the sciences are the only way of ascertaining truth. In that, it's more akin to a dogmatic religious ideology. Scientism seems to have, for better or worse, grown in popularity as a replacement for more conventional religious ideologies. Those who speak from the scientism playbook are replete with strange double standards like the one you point out in the rest of your opening post.

It's important to note that nobody seems to identify as an adherent of scientism. The term is something of a pejorative used to describe those who put the sciences on a pedestal as the be-all and end-all of truth akin to how some fundamentalist Christians put their Bible on a pedestal for the same purposes. I use it in the absence of any better term to describe a dogmatically religious interpretation of the sciences.

 

[taykair]

OK, but when holding onto my example of the telling of the Sun and Moon in the cultural stories of creation, this is as objective as it get, don´t you agree?

And when we put all the human stories about the Sun and Moon together, I think we get THE STORY. And this also goes with the other parts of the common Stories of Creation, IMO.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this. I see the stories as subjective, not objective. Even so, I don't consider them to necessarily be untrue or not valuable in some way. I believe there is truth and value there, for those who look for them.

 

[taykair]

Agreed... and that was my particular bias showing, unfortunately. Perhaps I could have referenced a disparity in the quality or caliber of evidence, rather than a plea to quantity.

Even this would have been insensitive, obviously, however there is one thing I feel supports being "insensitive" in this way - and that is that only one among the types of evidence to be found between the scientific and the religious would hold up in court. This makes complete sense, and it is simply interesting to mull over why this is, and why it does make such good sense.

This would, of course, depend on what kind of court, wouldn't it?

 

[sealchan]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

However, according to the religious person's world-view, could not the same be said for a belief in religious matters? That is to say: Is the existence of a religious truth dependent upon our belief in it? Doesn't the theist believe, for example, that God exists whether he believes in God or not?

Of course he does. The theist does not "will" God into existence by believing in God any more than scientific truth is "willed" into existence through the efforts of its adherents. These truths, if they exist at all, are not invented but rather discovered. Could it be possible that both scientific truth and religious truth both exist, and do so despite however we may feel about them?

This is the point in the argument where the scientist says, "No, because there is evidence for science, but not for religion." But what kind of evidence are we talking about?

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

The standards for religious truth MUST be different than those for scientific truth. Scientific truth and religious truth are two different ways of knowing truth. Each covers the whole of the Universe as its target but as they have different aims, they have different standards. The trick is to accept this and unpack one's truths accordingly. In this way one can retain overlapping truths (truths which speak of the same thing) and not require one to equal the other.

Another trick is to realize that human beings, the truth knowers, have differing preferences for cognitive functions as outlined by Carl Jung. The irrational functions, sensation and intuition, as well as the rational ones, feeling and thinking, are deployed in each of our personalities with preference of one over the other. This leaves us with different styles of truths that we use to negotiate reality with.

Then there is the objective/subjective divide where we consider our truths as either personal and internal to our own world view or as true no matter what we or anyone else thinks. These are also two kinds of truths as the first is only valid when understood to be personally known whereas the other is of the opposite character. The complex, adaptive system which is our personal mind is interconnected deeply with the society and the reality around it, but it has inevitably configured itself into several knots which require the individual to make room in their objective reality for their own psychological reality. This is where subjective truth can override objective truth.

Subjective truth is vitally connected with our passion and motivation. We cannot fully abandon our subjective truth without asking our objective truth to give us "a little room". This little room can be made in many ways, but one common way is through the creation of a ritual space. With a shared community of "believers" a ritual space allows us to temporarily leave the realities of the sensory world and enter that of another, "more spiritual", realm.

Now if this community starts to propose that their collective, subjective truth has a more objective value than scientific truth, then a problem is created. You have a bleeding together of two realms of truth that should not be seen as totally equivalent. Scientific truth, which is most closely aligned with sensory reality or the sensory experience of the world, should not be equated with religious truth for religious truth SHOULD BE more closely aligned with intuitive reality or the intuitive experience of the world.

Intuition is a cognitive function of the human brain which creates perceptions (irrational facts of our psychological experience) that we experience as self-evident truths or at least as potential truths that feel "right" to us. They often depict patterns which overlap and even contradict sensory differentiations. One such mechanism of intuition is the mapping of two different "fields of knowledge" onto each other such as when color is mapped onto emotions or geometry onto algebra. Intuition is never to be taken literally as much as it is to be taken as a recognition of underlying pattern that may be useful to human consciousness or is, otherwise, a fact of human consciousness. This is analogous to how the color of the sky is a fact of human consciousness because we perceive it as it is...but without a necessary rational justification for it. Intuitions are facts which we may or may not clothe in objective rationalizations. Whether they are personal or shared perceptions is less important than that they exist and are effective products of the human psyche.

We cannot dispose of this cognitive reality within us so we must become responsible for it. In fact there are billion dollar industries that most of us have contributed to to help us find our intuitive spaces to relieve ourselves from the burdens of the "mundanity" of our sensory reality. Aside from the churches and other religious spaces we have created for ourselves there is the movie theater. Here we may enclose ourselves, contemplate another reality, loose ourselves in the vicarious experience of others and come out, hopefully, with some renewed spirit to confront the reality of our existence with something more motivating than resignation and powerlessness.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This would, of course, depend on what kind of court, wouldn't it?

I was making specific reference to the only kind of court that should be had. The proceedings and outcomes of secular courts are already "bad" enough (rulings in dispute, questions of fairness, partiality, etc.). I don't think anyone can claim that religious-based "courts" have contributed anything that ends up being more positive than secular courts - except from an undeniably biased perspective. And by definition, a court based on a religious doctrine or practice cannot credibly claim "impartiality" in any sense of the word. Hence my assumption and dismissive stance there.

As an example, would a Hindu believe that a Christian court had anything positive to offer in its "moral" judgment of the Hindu people of the world? Perhaps on some points, but certainly not all. Nor would a Christian very much enjoy being the defendant in a court biased-toward or based on Hinduism with certain judgments that might be made there. However, each of them could turn to a system that claims ultimate impartiality, and adheres only to the laws of the land, agreed upon by the very people living in the land (to as much a degree as this remains possible, obviously), even given all their differences otherwise (race, creed, political affiliation, etc.).

 

[taykair]

Sounds like something an adherent of scientism would say, because it's a misrepresentation of what the sciences actually do. Believers in scientism tend to interpret science as prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Furthermore, in order for something to be true within scientism, it must be supported by the sciences and the sciences are the only way of ascertaining truth. In that, it's more akin to a dogmatic religious ideology. Scientism seems to have, for better or worse, grown in popularity as a replacement for more conventional religious ideologies. Those who speak from the scientism playbook are replete with strange double standards like the one you point out in the rest of your opening post.

It's important to note that nobody seems to identify as an adherent of scientism. The term is something of a pejorative used to describe those who put the sciences on a pedestal as the be-all and end-all of truth akin to how some fundamentalist Christians put their Bible on a pedestal for the same purposes. I use it in the absence of any better term to describe a dogmatically religious interpretation of the sciences.

Thanks to you, I have a new word - scientism. You are correct that it is scientism, and not science, which I equate with religion in my original post.

I could go back and edit, but if I did then fewer people would be pissed off. So I'll just let it stand.

 

[Revoltingest]

Science depends little upon the culture which employs it.
Chemistry, physics, thermodynamics & others will behave
the same for all. But religion is culture dependent.
Consider the question of existence of God....
It's not even the right question. Which gods? How many gods?
What are they like? Their relationship with us? What are their
powers & limits?
All of these vary with culture, since none are independently testable.

 

[sealchan]

What I would say that is closest to your quoted sentence is that the difference between the belief in gods and angels and a belief in scientific principles is that the former is unjustified belief, and the latter justified.



I don't make a distinction between scientific truth and religious truth. There is only truth, truth being the quality that facts possess, and facts being linguistic strings that accurately map a portion of reality. Reality is the collection of things and processes that actually exist and interactive with one another. If any of the world's religions can identify an aspect of reality that can be demonstrated to exist, then that religion has uncovered truth.

Notice also that religion and science use unrelated methods for deciding what is true, only one of which is valid in my estimation. I have no confidence in the output of any method that relies on faith, by which I mean religious type faith, or unjustified belief. Faith can't be a path to truth, since any idea or its polar opposite can be believed by faith even when the ideas are mutually exclusive, and at most only one can be true. This is the method that has generated so many contradictory religions, each claiming to have the truth. That's probably what you meant by religious truth, but I don't use that word to describe claims derived in that matter for reasons just given.

When one uses reason properly applied to all of the relevant evidence, one comes up with things like the periodic table of the elements. We have only one of them. You can call that scientific truth, but it's just truth to me.



That is the individual's belief set, but it is not necessarily all true. There is a place for subjective truth, but what makes it truth is that it is reproducibly observable to the individual. If I have discovered that I like coffee better than tea or that wool makes me itch, those are reproducible observations, but observable only to me. That's what I would mean by a personal or subjective truth.

Simply declaring something is true because you want it to be or it pleases you to think that it might be does not rise to the level of what I would call truth. That's more like hope which has been allowed to become belief, hope and belief being different things.

I think that we tend to get bogged down when using the word truth. People start looking for eternal principles that transcend experience. The refer to absolute truths and constant truths. I find none of that helpful.

Instead, I prefer what is sometimes empirical adequacy. If an idea works, keep it. If it doesn't modify it so that it does when possible, and toss it out when not. I happen to live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. We can call that a true statement if it turns out that walking three blocks west and five blocks south takes me to the pier, but what really matters is that the idea is useful for a particular purpose. It accounts for prior experience and can be used to control outcomes in the future in a way that wrong directions cannot.

If somebody wants to get into an arcane, sophistic argument about that not being a universal truth for whatever reason, I would lose interest.

In the spirit of "an idea works" would you include that a faith belief that motivates an individual to be productive, charitable, hopeful and encouraging as also true?

 

[Scott C.]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I agree that this statement is incorrect. Truth is truth whether discovered by faith or science. Gravity remains true whether I believe in it or not. God exists whether I believe it or not. Is there anything in religion that is true contingent on my belief that it's true? I can't think of anything offhand.

 

[taykair]

The standards for religious truth MUST be different than those for scientific truth. Scientific truth and religious truth are two different ways of knowing truth. Each covers the whole of the Universe as its target but as they have different aims, they have different standards. The trick is to accept this and unpack one's truths accordingly. In this way one can retain overlapping truths (truths which speak of the same thing) and not require one to equal the other.

Another trick is to realize that human beings, the truth knowers, have differing preferences for cognitive functions as outlined by Carl Jung. The irrational functions, sensation and intuition, as well as the rational ones, feeling and thinking, are deployed in each of our personalities with preference of one over the other. This leaves us with different styles of truths that we use to negotiate reality with.

Then there is the objective/subjective divide where we consider our truths as either personal and internal to our own world view or as true no matter what we or anyone else thinks. These are also two kinds of truths as the first is only valid when understood to be personally known whereas the other is of the opposite character. The complex, adaptive system which is our personal mind is interconnected deeply with the society and the reality around it, but it has inevitably configured itself into several knots which require the individual to make room in their objective reality for their own psychological reality. This is where subjective truth can override objective truth.

Subjective truth is vitally connected with our passion and motivation. We cannot fully abandon our subjective truth without asking our objective truth to give us "a little room". This little room can be made in many ways, but one common way is through the creation of a ritual space. With a shared community of "believers" a ritual space allows us to temporarily leave the realities of the sensory world and enter that of another, "more spiritual", realm.

Now if this community starts to propose that their collective, subjective truth has a more objective value than scientific truth, then a problem is created. You have a bleeding together of two realms of truth that should not be seen as totally equivalent. Scientific truth, which is most closely aligned with sensory reality or the sensory experience of the world, should not be equated with religious truth for religious truth SHOULD BE more closely aligned with intuitive reality or the intuitive experience of the world.

Intuition is a cognitive function of the human brain which creates perceptions (irrational facts of our psychological experience) that we experience as self-evident truths or at least as potential truths that feel "right" to us. They often depict patterns which overlap and even contradict sensory differentiations. One such mechanism of intuition is the mapping of two different "fields of knowledge" onto each other such as when color is mapped onto emotions or geometry onto algebra. Intuition is never to be taken literally as much as it is to be taken as a recognition of underlying pattern that may be useful to human consciousness or is, otherwise, a fact of human consciousness. This is analogous to how the color of the sky is a fact of human consciousness because we perceive it as it is...but without a necessary rational justification for it. Intuitions are facts which we may or may not clothe in objective rationalizations. Whether they are personal or shared perceptions is less important than that they exist and are effective products of the human psyche.

We cannot dispose of this cognitive reality within us so we must become responsible for it. In fact there are billion dollar industries that most of us have contributed to to help us find our intuitive spaces to relieve ourselves from the burdens of the "mundanity" of our sensory reality. Aside from the churches and other religious spaces we have created for ourselves there is the movie theater. Here we may enclose ourselves, contemplate another reality, loose ourselves in the vicarious experience of others and come out, hopefully, with some renewed spirit to confront the reality of our existence with something more motivating than resignation and powerlessness.

This whole objective truth / subjective truth thing really sets my teeth to grinding sometimes.

Often, it's because the person who says "objective truth" is really saying "my idea", and when he says "subjective truth", he's really saying "your stupid, worthless idea". Same with "realities". My reality is real and yours... well... you're just delusional.

This is not true of your post, though, and I thank you for it.

 

[taykair]

I was making specific reference to the only kind of court that should be had. The proceedings and outcomes of secular courts are already "bad" enough (rulings in dispute, questions of fairness, partiality, etc.). I don't think anyone can claim that religious-based "courts" have contributed anything that ends up being more positive than secular courts - except from an undeniably biased perspective. And by definition, a court based on a religious doctrine or practice cannot credibly claim "impartiality" in any sense of the word. Hence my assumption and dismissive stance there.

As an example, would a Hindu believe that a Christian court had anything positive to offer in its "moral" judgment of the Hindu people of the world? Perhaps on some points, but certainly not all. Nor would a Christian very much enjoy being the defendant in a court biased-toward or based on Hinduism with certain judgments that might be made there. However, each of them could turn to a system that claims ultimate impartiality, and adheres only to the laws of the land, agreed upon by the very people living in the land (to as much a degree as this remains possible, obviously), even given all their differences otherwise (race, creed, political affiliation, etc.).

Honestly, I wasn't even thinking of religious courts but rather, I suppose, of the "bad" ones you mentioned.

I thought, 'What if I were on trial, and the evidence pointed to my guilt, and I was found guilty, but was actually innocent?' The evidence was indeed evidence. The deliberation of that evidence was diligently pursued. Yet the verdict was wrong. This can (and, unfortunately, does) happen sometimes.

Perhaps we can fault the fallible humans (judge, jury, legal counsel, etc.) for the mistakes made by an otherwise good system. But who else can I turn to for a verdict based, not necessarily upon the evidence (which damns me), but rather upon what really happened?

Only myself. I know I am innocent.

Of course, in a real court, this would mean nothing.

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks to you, I have a new word - scientism. You are correct that it is scientism, and not science, which I equate with religion in my original post.

I can't recall where I first heard the term anymore. Wikipedia has a decent page on it if you want more background. Scientistic attitudes have made their way into popular culture with the New Atheist movement in particular. There's even an Overwatch character now who is basically an adherent. I love playing Moira, but every time I pick her and she goes "science will reveal the truth" I just groan inside.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Only myself. I know I am innocent.

Of course, in a real court, this would mean nothing.

Unfortunately, because no one else can genuinely know your experience and version of the truth, it has to remain mostly inconsequential - usable only as a comparison to the facts as they are otherwise known or brought to light in a particular case.

This is mostly the same boat that religion is in. As a believer of precisely ZERO defined, religious faith claims, I, personally, can't know your truth. And so when you make claims that defy the reality that many others (myself included) experience, your personal input must remain fairly inconsequential when dealing with the larger body of human beings who co-inhabit your space, unless you can provide evidence that makes the rest of us understand that your "truth" does indeed necessarily represent the experience of reality the rest of us face.

 

[taykair]

Science depends little upon the culture which employs it.
Chemistry, physics, thermodynamics & others will behave
the same for all. But religion is culture dependent.
Consider the question of existence of God....
It's not even the right question. Which gods? How many gods?
What are they like? Their relationship with us? What are their
powers & limits?
All of these vary with culture, since none are independently testable.

I can't argue with that... so let me try anyway.

The sciences you mentioned are not, as you say, culturally dependent. They are, however, time dependent. Newton's theory of gravity was science. Einstein's theory of gravity is science. [INSERT NAME OF FUTURE SCIENTIST HERE]'s theory of gravity will be science. All have followed (or will follow) the same method for ascertaining truth.

Religion, too, is time dependent (as well as, like you say, culturally dependent - at least as far as their origins are concerned). That it may take longer for religion to change than it does for science to change doesn't really bother me all that much. (I've got time.) That it uses different methods to arrive at truth doesn't really bother me either. (I'm easy to get along with.)