College students leaving religion: It's not "the science", it's "science"

[Colt]

And a dodge. If you want to claim that a god exists you take on a burden of proof. You could not define a "spiritual experience" And I can tell you that mine did not require a god. You are defeating yourself here.

And a dodge. If you want to claim that a god exists you take on a burden of proof. You could not define a "spiritual experience" And I can tell you that mine did not require a god. You are defeating yourself here.

Only in your mind. You acknowledged spiritual experiences exist and that they don't need to be credited to God, yet you can't prove their existence as a purely material phenomenon either. Being subjective and difficult to describe you congratulate yourself once again as having won a debate point.

 

[Colt]

And when we believers show what we know and atheists say "that's not evidence" then it is time for us to close up shop and go home because otherwise it just keeps going in circles.

Its intellectual masturbation for materialists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in your mind. You acknowledged spiritual experiences exist and that they don't need to be credited to God, yet you can't prove their existence as a purely material phenomenon either. Being subjective and difficult to describe you congratulate yourself once again as having won a debate point.

No, no no. You were the one that agreed to my definition. No god was necessary for mine.

Try again.

Or you could take up the burden of proof upon yourself. Define your terms properly and support your claims.

 

[Colt]

Actually knowledge is demonstrable. If a person cannot show that they know what they know all that they have are blind assertions. People that claim to know something do have to demonstrate that they know this.

You cannot show how you "know" that the experience that religionist have with God isn't real. You are just making blind assertions of your own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot show how you "know" that the experience that religionist have with God isn't real. You are just making blind assertions of your own.

Which I never claimed as you demonstrated when you quoted me. You attempted to misinterpret a quote.

I am always willing to allow others to defend their claims. But, if they cannot, then it appears that those claims are false. It does not prove that they are false, but it does put the burden of proof right back on you.

 

[Link]

Secular science is all a way to think as the anti-God theory. Why do poor people believe in God more then rich people, the secular reasoning is different for example, then the reasons give by Quran and Ahlulbayt hadiths.
The way you state things and lead people on influences how they think.

Also, they misconstrue Theist arguments and present them in a weaker form or counter argue them without the counter argument by Theists.

You can say it's critical thinking or it can be as Quran explains it "Rather it was planning day and night to make us disbelieve in our Lord" - quoting weakened disbelievers about the arrogant disbelievers on the day of judgment complaining they were mislead by them.

 

[Colt]

No, no no. You were the one that agreed to my definition. No god was necessary for mine.

Try again.

Or you could take up the burden of proof upon yourself. Define your terms properly and support your claims.

I didn't claim that the "spiritual experience" has a precise definition. There could be many definitions from the many people who have them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't claim that the "spiritual experience" has a precise definition. There could be many definitions from the many people who have them.

Which is why your "spiritual experience" claims are worthless. If you cannot say what they are then they have no use to either side in a debate. It is the same as if they did not happen at all.

 

[Link]

Which is why your "spiritual experience" claims are worthless. If you cannot say what they are then they have no use to either side in a debate. It is the same as if they did not happen at all.

Power, authority, leadership, are all debated terms, and have different definitions by people, and most of the battle between truth and falsehood is in semantics, but this is a long story and an endless tale, so let me end it at that.

 

[Colt]

Which is why your "spiritual experience" claims are worthless. If you cannot say what they are then they have no use to either side in a debate. It is the same as if they did not happen at all.

They aren't worthless to me, only to evil people who make a hobby of discrediting the spiritual experiences of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Power, authority, leadership, are all debated terms, and have different definitions by people, and most of the battle between truth and falsehood is in semantics, but this is a long story and endless tale, so let me end it at that.

The problem arises when one side uses a term, such as "power" in a way where the meaning is not clear. Technically power is just energy per second. People rarely mean that. If one refuses to define one's terms then it is impossible to communicate accurately. And people often abuse terminology and refuse to define it as part of a tactic since they have no real evidence.

When a person uses a term he has to be able to define it when someone asks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They aren't worthless to me, only to evil people who make a hobby of discrediting the spiritual experiences of others.

They are worthless if you are trying to make a claim. Convincing oneself is extremely easy and does not prove anything. It is why the correct term that people should usually use is "I believe" not "I know". If you believe you have only convinced yourself. To "know" you need to be able to convince others.

And please watch the personal attacks. I have not claimed that you are merely hallucinating. You just did the equivalent of that.

 

[Heyo]

I might rather say that religious "truth" often contradicts itself, the religious "truth" of other denominations or reality.
The primary reason for the contradictions is that man misinterprets or changes what was originally revealed by God.
I believe that spiritual truth is one and it can be found in all religions and even outside of religion, since Reality is one.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

I could almost agree with that - only that I think that the truth all can agree upon is different from the one you are imagining.

 

[Heyo]

And when we believers show what we know and atheists say "that's not evidence" then it is time for us to close up shop and go home because otherwise it just keeps going in circles.

Or you could take a step back and first try to agree upon an epistemology.
(But you'd better go home as scientific epistemology has an unbeatable track record and theological epistemology can lead to all kinds of theologies.)

 

[Link]

The problem arises when one side uses a term, such as "power" in a way where the meaning is not clear. Technically power is just energy per second. People rarely mean that. If one refuses to define one's terms then it is impossible to communicate accurately. And people often abuse terminology and refuse to define it as part of a tactic since they have no real evidence.

When a person uses a term he has to be able to define it when someone asks.

Defining is important, but also acknowledging, people use different definitions and understanding of terms. Take for example, sorcery/magic/witches/sorcerers. In the past, it had negative connotation and was seen as getting power from diabolic forces. Now in the west, it's presented more of a neutral thing, it can be good magic or bad magic. White magic or dark magic, or some people say no such thing as white or dark magic, there is just magic, you can have good intention or bad intention.

The way magic is defined now in the west by neopaganism for example, all actions can be seen as magical in nature in a more broad definition, so then in this usage, magic loses it's negative perception and more people are intrigued by it.

Then there is the tricks magic thing, which has nothing to do with spiritual power at all, but just is slight of hand.

The term on "god' is actually a semantic battle. Arabs that argued with Mohammad (s) about it, all acknowledge Creator as higher, more absolute in greatness, but they weren't willing to let go of the usage of the term god for their gods. In Islam, is highly important to reserve a word of love and reverence for God that is unique to him, and the highest form of love and exalting is Worship.

If not the Creator, what will we love the most and exalt the most? The semantic purification of these terms is essential, because we naturally value wealth, culture, people, as much God or more then God, so we have to strip the title of gods from Prophets, Messengers, and Angels, for a reason.

The word "leader" is something everyone takes lightly, but how did Quran discuss it? Authority, leadership, proof, religion, these are all debated terms.

I agree it's important to define terms, but who get's the authority to do that? Language itself changes time to time and translations are complicated for a reason.

 

[metis]

A common explanation for why US college students have been leaving Christianity is to attribute it to them taking biology, genetics, geology, etc., being taught information that contradicts their beliefs, realizing that much of what they were taught in church isn't true, and abandoning Christianity as a result.

However, a recent study indicates that it's not specific courses of study that's responsible, rather it's studying secular science at all and subsequently learning how to question assumptions and engage in critical thinking.

Inquiry, Not Science, as the Source of Secularization in Higher Education | Sociology of Religion | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

The traditional claim in the literature on religion and science is that exposure to science leads to secularity because the claims about the natural world in the two systems are incompatible. More recently, research has narrowed this claim and shown that conflict over knowledge in the USA is primarily limited to one religion—conservative Protestantism—and only to a few fact claims. In this paper, I test this claim using longitudinal data from matched surveys taken in students’ first and fourth year of university. I find no evidence that the science is more secularizing than nonscience. I then turn to a distinction in university majors long used by sociologists of education—between majors focused on inquiry versus those focused on applying knowledge—and find that majors focused on inquiry are more likely to secularize than those focused on application. I interpret this to mean that learning to inquire secularizes.​

That makes sense to me and is consistent with my experiences. I've kind of always been a critical thinker who questions everything, and it's always been a major stumbling block between me and religious friends, family, and institutions (churches). They've always struck me as a bit put off at my asking tough questions and not taking things merely on faith.

It's also nice to see that people who are raised in religious environments where critical thinking is discouraged can not only learn to engage in it, but can also enhance the skill.

I guess there's hope for everyone!

(h/t: friendly atheist)

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, therefore both should some respect for each other.

 

[Colt]

They are worthless if you are trying to make a claim. Convincing oneself is extremely easy and does not prove anything. It is why the correct term that people should usually use is "I believe" not "I know". If you believe you have only convinced yourself. To "know" you need to be able to convince others.

And please watch the personal attacks. I have not claimed that you are merely hallucinating. You just did the equivalent of that.

You need to search for God on your own rather then making personal attacks on the experiences of others while pretending you take some high road.

 

[Heyo]

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, therefore both should some respect for each other.

Science and (the vast majority of) religions are mutually exclusive at the core. But scientists and believers have managed to ignore or compartmentalize the basic difference. (But that is another topic.)

 

[Jose Fly]

I know that. I was just saying that the US flavour of Christianity is a bit “odd.”

Yes, it is indeed rather unique, especially when it comes to its fundamentalists.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science only debunks the superstitious component of religion. It has no effect in spiritual truth.

I guess that depends on what spiritual truths you're talking about.