• 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!

Believe It or Not

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
"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.

In religions, everything is accepted on faith alone, with very little evidence used to support beliefs aside from a few anecdotes of personal experiences that cannot be objectively verified. Science is a big step up, and the scientific method is used to rigorously test beliefs, and try to strike them down. If they withstand the scientific method, and work through all tests, they are assumed to be true. However, I would argue that a degree of faith is still required--because even a massive amount of empirical evidence does not guarantee something to be true. Pure Mathematics, on the other hand, is even more rigorous than science and is the exact opposite of religion in that nothing is believed based on faith (aside from trivial facts of logic) and everything must be systematically and precisely proven using these fundamental facts.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
"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.

Something is true when I can constantly prove to someone else it's true, despite any means they might have of proving it is not true.

However, since things are always changing, there might come a time when it's no longer true.

It you've proven something true enough times, it's usually safe to belief it remains true, but just never with 100% certainty.

So it seems to me religious truth are accepted with 100% certainty without ever needing to be proven once.

Scientific truths are accepted based on the number of times it has been proven true and the number of attempts made to disprove it, which have all failed, but never with 100% certainty.
 
I like the terms scientific and religious truth. However, why would they be the same truth? it is a little intertwined.
Scientific truth is just true because it describes how things work, like how to build an atom bomb. Either it works or it doesn't.

Religious truth is kinda different because, for religious truth, it is true that the earth and we ourselves are the middle points of the universe.
Religion is about us and how we should be and behave. An aspect of it then what do I do with the working atom bomb? not bomb everyone away of course since I should love my neighbor, not bomb him. I don't think that's it about religious truth but morality is an aspect of it, we even symbolize moral conflict most commonly with angle and devil.
 
Top