-
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!
Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
It does? Why? If you must "know", I subscribe to no "religion," and hold only individual beliefs among those communally accepted - assimilating at my choice, discarding the rest. I have no doctrine to turn to, no community of like minds who meets every x-day, no traditions, no culture to embrace, hide within or defend against assailants. I (or at least I try to) reserve my allegiance for those things that seek to ally themselves with me with an unequivocal lack of pretense. I don't expect this makes me "better" - I sometimes briefly envy people their participation in certain things of which I don't partake. Though it is the pretense that keeps me at bay - it only ever leaves me frustrated, and almost always rears its head in many of those activities.
In other words, I suppose there's not much to know. And I simply don't care all that much for there to be "more."
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
I think we have to differentiate between religion and theology as a category of philosophy, just as we have to differentiate between political idealism, and political practice. Democracy, for example, is a great political ideal: one man one vote. But in practice, it quickly becomes mob rule. And the same kinds of discrepancies occur between the ideal of faith in God, and the practice of religion.
Also, keep in mind that science doesn't make 'proclamations', it makes 'observations'. It's "scientism" that presumes those observations to be truth-proclamations. As again, the practice tends to corrupt the ideology.
It isn't religion that is the culprit, here. It's human nature.
Was this supposed to be relevant to what you quoted?
PureX
Veteran Member
Are you the relevancy police, now?
I'll take that as a "no."
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
IMO it all depends on the scientific understanding of ancient myths and the embedded cosmology.
<
If people in science takes the global and biblical "Flood Myth" literary, they never can get it right. The Flood Myth connects directly to the "Milky Way River" which can be observed all around the Earth as a white band running OVER the Earth and not ON the Earth. This myth is hugely misinterpreted.
Links:
Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia
List of names for the Milky Way - Wikipedia
The ancient myths of creation is NOT just "ancient mumble jumble". They contains real cosmological knowledge.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
As with anything, the ability to collect data or direct/indirect evidence would allow every belief to eventually be known to be true or false -such as has been the case with the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (which isn't actually what the bible says).
For example...
Understanding enough of the most basic truths about reality would reveal whether or not an original intelligence necessarily preceded the universe. It might be possible to actually do so with what we already know -if we read it right -as it is likely that the things which exist now are the same stuff which has always existed, but in a different arrangement. We know that certain things which now exist in the present arrangement (the "physical" universe) required intelligence, self-awareness, intent, creativity, etc., and were not otherwise possible (a 1978 Ford truck, for example).
We may not understand the nature of the most basic components of reality enough to conclude that God necessarily preceded the physical universe -but the same principle would still apply to that which existed before the universe.
It is also possible that we do have enough data -but have not fully realized what it means.
Though many religious beliefs are now known to be false, others should now be known to be possible.
We now routinely do things which were once considered miraculous or impossible -and that path could conceivably lead to mastery of the universe.
We have increased in knowledge and improved our ability to interface -and our power over reality has increased.
Our power is presently limited by our position within reality -but we have also begun to change that position.
An all-powerful, omniscient God would be so by position -by occupying the original position -by being the sum of reality.
If science does the math and realizes that God exists, realizes that God is perfect by necessity, realizes that man will not get very far without God and his government, that all science could know could simply be granted and is the product of the mind of God -except perhaps God's own basic nature -that we could be granted a much-improved mind and body when we could be trusted to not make a mess of the universe as we have Earth....
Then science could conclude that God is worthy of worship (appreciation of actual greatness) and logically should be obeyed -that there is great advantage to it -with the same reasoning by which it realizes that physical laws must be obeyed in order to get anything done. God exists, so must be considered.
Then science could not simply reverse-engineer the universe while hoping it doesn't run out of time due to mankind destroying itself, but could go on to apply scientific knowledge with their improved minds and bodies throughout the universe -and even create sciences which do not yet exist.
No. Because religious beliefs are matters of faith. If a religious person considers the story of the worldwide flood to be a matter of fact to argue against science, then they are mistaken what religious faith is about. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with origin myths being actual science and history.
Yes, absolutely. Can the scientific method tell you the meaning of love? It's the wrong approach to truth to anything beyond empiricism. This has been well known for quite some time now.
Yes, because these are events of supposed actual history, which science can look at. The meaning of the stories however is not something science can address. It's like using a car jack to screw in a lightbulb.
No of course not since the Divine is not a "thing", some object that exists like a Bigfoot or something. Science can't legitimately tell you the content of your experiences however, but that does not mean what you experience isn't true.
Yes it can, and it has actually. This is because there are measurable differences in things like brain states. There's tons of data out there on this. However, it cannot describe the content of such a state. Only the person experiencing that can do so via reporting it to another. Then science could take those reports and compare, contrast, and rank them. This too has been done.
That's a good question. I'd say it both doesn't matter and does matter. To say I have an experience that is extraordinary is one thing. To say that experience is shared by many people, rare as that may be, does validate the experience as not just some purely subjective thing. If hundreds of people all describe the same sorts of things, that is in fact objective evidence. The real test however is how someone's individual life responds to that. If it has a transformative effect, then that too says something objectively. It's a corroboration that "something" happened.
Any sort of genuine spiritual experience cannot live in denial of reality, but embrace it. If the tools of our sciences are solid and they bring us information, then we need to embrace it as part of the whole package. A spirituality which does not include the mind, is not a true spirituality. But to know what is spiritual, you don't look to science. You look within.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
It is up to people to distinguish between true and false beliefs. "science" and "religion" are methods by which we understand our world. As far as legitimacy goes, the whole point of the scientific method is to confirm or reject hypotheses. We do not currently know the limits of what is testable. We cannot say that religious beliefs, in general, are untestable.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Then you verify my claim ... that the Exodus is falsified. That's the only claim that I make. But ... no Exodus means no Moses, no Ten Commandments, etc. Infer what you'd like and call me all the names you wish, that changes nothing, Judaism without all that stuff is not Judaism as we know it, it is something entirely different.
I've done nothing of the kind. Nor, by the way, have you.
You presume to instruct me on Judaism? Seriously?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
If the supposed evidence is a material thing, then science can verify it's existence. For instance, we can look for evidence of a great flood. However, unless evidence exists, why hold the belief?
But even if a world wide flood were to be found to be true......you still have to demonstrate that a god exists and that the god caused the flood.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I claim to have, you claim I have not, show us the tracks of the trevail, or tell us how they were missed, or admit your error. Otherwise, you loose and can spend you time debating what makes a Jew and what doesn't in some less than meaningful way.
No I don't, I find alll religion to be foolish, so why would I instruct anyone in anything religious? I'm just pointing out the error of your thinking. If you want to take that as, "instruct me on rationality, or logic, or archeology," so be it ... it would appear that someone should instruct you, so it might as well be this atheist.You presume to instruct me on Judaism? Seriously?
Last edited:
Science can tell factual matters.
Science can not tell spiritual matters.
However if spiritual matters were fact, i.e. everyone could view them objectively and agree to them, it could tell spiritual matters too. Science would use abductive, deductive and inductive reasoning like everything else. Repeatable, falsifiable, observable, testable.
Science can not tell spiritual matters.
However if spiritual matters were fact, i.e. everyone could view them objectively and agree to them, it could tell spiritual matters too. Science would use abductive, deductive and inductive reasoning like everything else. Repeatable, falsifiable, observable, testable.
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
Just answering your main question.
Just last week, a scientific article stated that research has shown that our universe shouldn't exist. It was as scientific as you could make it.
Yet, somehow, I think while their research is spot on, that perhaps there are some small details that science isn't capable of answering - such small details as the existence of our humongous universe.
If this is true, perhaps there are other small details of same scope and size that might escape the grasp of science.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
This one's easy; Yes, science can legitimately tell us that there was no "great flood" and has been proven multiple times in multiple ways by multiple people using a wide range of scientific disciplines.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
The Ten Commandments can be shown to be optimal by the sciences.
The latter (about the basics of loving neighbor) would obviously create a much better world, and even the principles of the former (about the basics of loving God) can be shown to be correct without knowing whether or not God exists.
If the personhood of God is removed from the equation, universal obedience to the truth defined by our shared environment is still obviously necessary -should not be taken lightly -and should not be held in lower regard than anything else.
There is universal truth which humans could agree upon -and universal spiritual/moral law which is based on the nature of the universe -which would cause peace if obeyed.
Even resting consistently on one particular day every seven can be shown to be better than not doing so.
The latter (about the basics of loving neighbor) would obviously create a much better world, and even the principles of the former (about the basics of loving God) can be shown to be correct without knowing whether or not God exists.
If the personhood of God is removed from the equation, universal obedience to the truth defined by our shared environment is still obviously necessary -should not be taken lightly -and should not be held in lower regard than anything else.
There is universal truth which humans could agree upon -and universal spiritual/moral law which is based on the nature of the universe -which would cause peace if obeyed.
Even resting consistently on one particular day every seven can be shown to be better than not doing so.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Many have shown evidence of a worldwide flood. At the least, and to be honest, it should be said that there is not enough evidence for science to conclude that the specific flood described in the bible happened as described.
There is also a great deal of bias about the subject, and the existence of a God capable of miraculous things is often assumed to be false.
If God does not exist, the flood did not happen as described. It could not.
There is no reason to continue after that assumption.
It is also important to note that there is much the bible does not specify -and much is often assumed.
As for evidence of the flood itself.....
Many assume that a worldwide flood would move things great distances, but the flood described was caused by rain everywhere -and water coming up from the earth everywhere -all at once. Some things would be displaced locally, but not so much great disances. Then add thousands of years for evidence to be affected, and not much would be left.
It seems to me that "science" does not do itself any favors by attempting to disprove such things as the flood -as there is already bias in the endeavor.
Evidence often "suggests" things which are later shown to be false by gaining other evidence -and the amount of evidence (assuming he correct evidence is being sought) necessary to proveor disprove that the whole world essentially got wet thousands of years ago (the flood described is not as violent as the imagination might assume) simply is not in -assuming it is still accessible.
Science and religion alike would do well to say "I don't know" much more often -regardless of what is presently believed.
"Let God be true, and every man a liar" -(or let the truth be true, and every man a liar in the case of science) has been shown to be correctly applied to both science and religion.
"Science" is often shown to be incorrect -and is not often in agreement.
Sounds a lot like religion.
Assumption is not a good religious practice (faith is not assumption) -and it certainly isn't scientific to assume a conclusion without all of the evidence.
Whether we believe a worldwide flood happened or not, we do not strictly know -and that is presently the truth no matter which natural human we are.
It is a different sort of matter than showing that the Earth is older than 6,000 years -and actually more difficult to prove scientifically.
Last edited:
I haven't been sure how to reply to this thread. Part of that is because I recognize that the only thing that makes a belief "religious" is someone labeling it as religious. Part of it is because in my own religious tradition, given the gods are all things, the sciences are one of the ways used to study and know the gods. And part of it is because I'm not a backwards mythological literalist who believes the narratives of the world's religions were intended to represent historical/factual truth in the apparent world. All of those complications make any satisfactory responses to the questions difficult or impossible to come by for me.