1. 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!

Featured Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Sunstone, Oct 29, 2017.

  1. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,902
    Ratings:
    +3,740
    Religion:
    Hindu
    I do not fully agree. The database is only of discrete objects.

    Have you read the spoiler, btw?
     
  2. Kuzcotopia

    Kuzcotopia If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,869
    Ratings:
    +1,535
    Religion:
    Fat Stack 'o Pancakes
    What are the meanings and purposes of Judaism?
     
  3. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,156
    Ratings:
    +37,809
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    That is of course true -- the database is only of discrete objects. However, there is no metaphysical assumption that those objects actually exist as discrete objects or in any other way. Not, at least, under methodological naturalism.

    Yes.
     
  4. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,719
    Religion:
    None
    It is not, but Judaism and its descendants are dependent on the mythology of the Exodus which has been falsified.
     
  5. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,902
    Ratings:
    +3,740
    Religion:
    Hindu
    I have a lot to speak on that but it is an hour past midnight here. I will try to pick it up here tomorrow. For now, I can only say that if the first person subjective consciousness is illusional and has no reality, as is the default materialistic position, then of what validity is the data on which the whole framework of naturalism is supposed to be based upon?
     
  6. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,156
    Ratings:
    +37,809
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Not naturalism. Methodological naturalism.

    Sleep well! :)
     
  7. Enoch07

    Enoch07 It's all a sick freaking joke.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    9,627
    Ratings:
    +2,721
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist-Christian
    Well there is a group of students who started the "Must Fall" movement at the University of Cape Town. They suggest science is racist. A fallacy invented by the white man to oppress all non-whites. Her evidence you say? Because the white mans science cannot explain why a local shaman can produce lightning from his fingertips and heal people by touch!

     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Mister Silver

    Mister Silver Faith's Nightmare

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,834
    Ratings:
    +1,604
    Religion:
    Infidel Savant
    The article I found is a year old and honestly reads more like an Onion piece:
    Watch Leftist Students Say Science Is Racist and Should Be Abolished

    Only that one blog mentions it. In fact, the mainstream media never mentions it. The only mention of UCT is protests in relation to tuition fees.
     
    #28 Mister Silver, Oct 29, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
  9. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,357
    Ratings:
    +481
    Religion:
    Christian
    Science is knowledge so it helps, but will it help reveal the one truth? That is a difficult question. I don't think it will because of too much fakery. There will still be faith involved in what worldview one believes.

    That said, what experiments do you propose? I have the catastrophism experiments of Guy Berthault and Professor ME Clark. It shows that catastrophism "can" override the theories of uniformitarianism when it occurs such as Noah's Flood.

    Catastrophism | Genesis Park
     
  10. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,436
    Ratings:
    +8,576
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    I question your "?" on your choice of belief. This needs clarification.
     
  11. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,436
    Ratings:
    +8,576
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Don;t hold your breath science will never claim to 'reveal the one truth.' There is indication that the 'one truth' has ever been revealed, but the line goes around the block for conflicting beliefs for those that claim 'they' have the 'one truth.'

    There is absolutely no evidence of any such world catastrophism.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,751
    Ratings:
    +15,014
    Religion:
    Judaism
    No, it is not.
     
  13. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,436
    Ratings:
    +8,576
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Actually, I agree. This is a problem primarily with Christianity, due to the dependency of Christian doctrine and dogma on Genesis mythology.
     
  14. MonkeyFire

    MonkeyFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,561
    Ratings:
    +540
    Religion:
    Faithful Jesus believer
    It can't dis-believe liars.
     
  15. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    8,976
    Ratings:
    +5,575
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    No.

    There is no definition of "God", "supernatural being", "supernatural", "spiritual", "immaterial" &c useful to reasoned enquiry. This results in questions regarding such things being not so much unfalsiable as meaningless.
    If the question can put in falsifiable form, then yes.
    The geological evidence points to its formation as a natural occurrence. Further, since Rama is a supernatural being, the question of Rama's hand in its construction is meaningless.
    Yes. No evidence suggests that the entire earth was submerged at any time in earth's 4.5 bn year history, and certainly not at any time in the two million years since genus Homo first emerged.

    The evidence against a Noah's flood in Ussher's timeline, which places it in 2348 BCE, is overwhelming. Such an event would leave a single flood stratum all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor. Geologists find no such stratum. Such an event would create a genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks having a common date, and there are no such bottlenecks. Such an event would require some 1.113 bn cubic miles of water over and above the water on earth today. It's not here.

    And there are countless further reasons, not least the uninterrupted existence of civilizations from that era on both sides of the purported flood, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and China.
    Why not? Because the category 'deity, a necessary aspect of the target of the enquiry, has no coherent definition.
    I don't know what exact state of mind 'enlightenment' is intended to designate. If it has a definition useful to reasoned enquiry then the question can in principle be examined and a result obtained.
    Assuming the problem of meaningful definitions is implicitly overcome, then beliefs about the good life, morality, the obligations and rights of citizens, the afterlife, judgment, heaven, hell and purgatory, or reincarnation and transmigration, could be answered on an objective basis.

    But since these are largely questions of detail within known parameters, in reality the humans involved would need to agree on a very clear statement of objectives and priorities before any such assortment of opinions could be winnowed.
    That appears to be a question for anthropology. So far anthropology has been longer on hypotheses than on firm conclusions. So the answer to this question is, in reality, not a little muddy.
     
  16. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,719
    Religion:
    None
    We have already had this discussion. If you recall I provide an effective and defining physical archeology falsification for the Exodus:
    ... and your response was smoke mirrors and handwaving that that failed to address the clear falsification:
    Forget about the cultural inventions, deal with your physical problem: Show me the firepits, the kitchen middens, the burials. Two million people make a real mess.
     
  17. idav

    idav Being
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    18,986
    Ratings:
    +3,302
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    Religion can have a way of hiding in ambiguity, a lot like with god of the gaps. Most wouldn't even need to put talking snakes to the rigor of science. While we could easily prove snakes do not talk by asking them a few questions about the book of Genesis, there will always be someone to challenge the fact we didn't ask every single snake.
     
  18. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,902
    Ratings:
    +3,740
    Religion:
    Hindu
    Thanks Sunstone.

    I think that my view of the previous post that was made without knowing the distinction between Philosophical and Methodical Naturalism, is valid.

    Scientific method entails investigations within a well defined scope. A description of Himalayas can be made from various perspectives and the results remain valid within the stated scope. So, in general, with a stated scope limited to the physical and measurable objects, scientific method cannot and should not operate in spiritual realms, which extend beyond the physical. I will note a little bit more detail to explain this.

    In a previous post I had talked of fundamental difference in goal and axioms of Vedanta and of Science. I will summarise it here. Vedanta teaches that the reality is unborn-unbound-non dual Brahman, which is said to be existence-consciousness. All apparent discrete changeable forms (including us) are that. We need to realise our Brahman nature in order to obtain freedom from bodily prisons. Science on the other hand, functions with axiom that all objects are separate and have their own reality. Vedanta considers the knowledge of discrete objects as provisional.

    But at the so-called discrete object level also, paradigms of Vedanta and science vary fundamentally. Science works from the premise of the world being comprised of physical measurable objects and inhabited by living beings, which are nothing but the bodies. So, the basic knowledge is “I am this body”, which takes birth and dies.

    Vedanta considers that the self manifests at three levels: a)”I am this body” (if this is the predominant belief, the self is ruled by absolute determinism), b) “I am this mental-sensual being” (in this case, the self is doer of deeds and experiencer of sweet or bitter fruits of doer-ship, and c)”I am pure consciousness” (at this level self may or may not choose to be a seer of natural evolutions of body-mind-world. At seer level, self is master of destiny. It can modify the behaviour of the body-sense-mind self.

    A few key differences between the Naturalistic and the Vedantic paradigms are: a)Vedanta teaches that being endowed with unborn consciousness in the core of being, the self can overcome and master its own nature, b) The self is not limited to a single lifetime. The ‘mind-sense body’ self along with its desires obtain body after body till the fires of desires are extinguished. Extinction of desires is Moksha, and c) In Vedic understanding, the timelines are not fixed and linear. Self goes through different states of consciousnesses and timespans in these vary. For example, timelines in waking and dream states are not same. Further, there is no time in deep sleep.

    Some will scoff at the above. But if one contemplates one will find that the paradigms are based on our very experiences. Further, as per Vedanta, anyone by following the prescribed yogic techniques correctly under supervision of teacher can know the reality of his/her and world's layered existence. There is no need for speculation or belief. As per Vedanta, all knowledge of ‘objects’ is useless, if the one that knows is not known. Since, in the Materialistic paradigm, there is no role for the unborn consciousness, question remains regarding validity of its dataset and objectivity of reasoning.

    So, again. I reiterate that science and religion have mostly non overlapping domains of knowledge. Both are valuable, yet, after gaining every worldly riches, one still may thirst for peace and happiness.
     
    #38 atanu, Oct 30, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
  19. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,447
    Ratings:
    +2,707
    Religion:
    None
    Whether a belief is defined as religious or not doesn’t have any impact on the ability to apply scientific method to it. After all, some people will say Scientology is a religion and some people say it isn’t but that doesn’t make any difference to how science could be used to address the beliefs held by that organisation.

    No more or less that the limitations that apply in general. The main one is the distinction between what could be addressed via scientific method in principle and what we as human beings are physically capable of doing. For example, measuring the mass of a rock is something that is relatively straight forwards but if the rock is question was orbiting a plant in the Alpha Centauri system, there’s no way for us to practically carry out that measurement. Just because we’re currently incapable of addressing a particular question don’t mean it’s somehow beyond the scope of science.

    Well it’s already happened (though obviously debatably in some cases). Certainly beliefs such as lightning being thrown by a god or illness being caused by evil spirits can be said to have been challenged by subsequent scientific discovery. In some cases, religions have changed and adapted to those new realities, defining more aspects of faith as metaphor for example. In other cases, the scientific results have been resisted and challenged, sometimes with vaguely scientific responses and sometimes with more direct denial and dismissal.

    I think any given religion can be used for a whole range of purposes and to carry a whole range of meanings. If you look at any of the major religions across the world you see a massive diversity in how the different followers approach their faith, what they take from it and how they live their lives as a result. I think generically asking how science and religion interact is like asking what food tastes like.
     
  20. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,751
    Ratings:
    +15,014
    Religion:
    Judaism
    No doubt you're very proud of yourself -- in fact, unjustifiably so -- and I'm content to leave you with your delusions except to note the following:

    Were you to read the interchange again, this time through a lens other than hubris and motivated by something other than a compulsion to start a fight, you would note that my response made no claim concerning the historicity of the Exodus. On the contrary, it asserts that Judaism is not dependent on such historicity and more than it is dependent upon a 144 hour creation event or a global flood.​

    Now scurry off and try to start a fight with someone else.
     
Loading...