Proof of religions

[Jaymes]

Is there any scientific proof of any religion? How does saying Jesus was God and died for our sins about 2000 years ago any more valid than saying the sun is Ra or that Loki creates earthquakes as he struggles against his bonds? Do we have a right to criticize anyone else's beliefs--whether they be in God, Jesus, aliens, mythical beings, or gods and goddess--when we have no proof of our own beyond our own experiences?

 

[Æsahættr]

Is there any scientific proof of any religion? How does saying Jesus was God and died for our sins about 2000 years ago any more valid than saying the sun is Ra or that Loki creates earthquakes as he struggles against his bonds? Do we have a right to criticize anyone else's beliefs--whether they be in God, Jesus, aliens, mythical beings, or gods and goddess--when we have no proof of our own beyond our own experiences?

Nope, no-one who is religious can criticise the beliefs of others without evidence in their own beliefs. Therefore only those who are non-religious can offer any criticism. Oh, if only...

 

[Mike182]

the only proof we have is very subjective, however, if a religion helps a person live in happiness, surely this is not an invalid belief!

 

[Jaymes]

What if the belief that makes them happy involves genocide?

 

[pandamonk]

Nope, no-one who is religious can criticise the beliefs of others without evidence in their own beliefs. Therefore only those who are non-religious can offer any criticism. Oh, if only...

Lolololol, ohh nicely said

 

[Abram]

What if the belief that makes them happy involves genocide?

:biglaugh: thats the funniest thing I've read. Just under your comment, your quote fit so perfect.:biglaugh:

 

[john63]

Nope, no-one who is religious can criticise the beliefs of others without evidence in their own beliefs. Therefore only those who are non-religious can offer any criticism. Oh, if only...

Hey, I have to agree here. What can I say?

 

[fromthe heart]

I think, speaking from a Christian perspective, that it's not so much criticism than trying to be sure those who are in your life which includes everyone you meet is not led down what could be the wrong path that leads to destruction. Showing that you care doesn't really fall under being critical. It's when someone claims they are absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong that it becomes criticism. The rest is all just belief of perspective. No one has the right to claim absolute right to say what another person believes is wrong! NOT even an atheist. They would have to be able to PROVE there is no such thing as what others believe...some have tried and tried but are not convincing despite having the right to believe as they choose.

 

[Pah]

Is there any scientific proof of any religion? ....

I think Scientology has a lock on that, Jensa

 

[Popeyesays]

Well: "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

Therefore the proof of a Prophet is in His words.

Therefore the proof of a religion is in its affects on human civilization.

As the Gospel puts it: "A good tree bears goodly fruit, and an evil tree is fit only for the fire."

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

Well: "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

Therefore the proof of a Prophet is in His words.

Therefore the proof of a religion is in its affects on human civilization.

As the Gospel puts it: "A good tree bears goodly fruit, and an evil tree is fit only for the fire."

Regards,
Scott

:clap

I have nothing to say more than that.

 

[Fluffy]

There is plenty of proof. Its just that none of it is verifiable nor conclusive.

Popeyesays' post is an excellent example of this, in my opinion.

 

[Sunstone]

Is there any scientific proof of any religion? How does saying Jesus was God and died for our sins about 2000 years ago any more valid than saying the sun is Ra or that Loki creates earthquakes as he struggles against his bonds? Do we have a right to criticize anyone else's beliefs--whether they be in God, Jesus, aliens, mythical beings, or gods and goddess--when we have no proof of our own beyond our own experiences?

If you're looking for scientific evidence in support of a religion's metaphysical claims, then there is none. But if you are looking for scientific evidence in support of a religion's claims to generate well being, or to benefit individuals and society, then there might be some.

 

[Green Gaia]

I think the only proof any religion can provide is how it effects the lives of the people who follow that religion. No religion or person can produce tangible evidence of an afterlife, or gods, or demons, or angels. So, all we can measure is the effect on our lives, and even that in itself can be subjective.

 

[michel]

If you're looking for scientific evidence in support of a religion's metaphysical claims, then there is none. But if you are looking for scientific evidence in support of a religion's claims to generate well being, or to benefit individuals and society, then there might be some.

I think the only proof any religion can provide is how it effects the lives of the people who follow that religion. No religion or person can produce tangible evidence of an afterlife, or gods, or demons, or angels. So, all we can measure is the effect on our lives, and even that in itself can be subjective.

Both you Sunstone, and maize are saying the same kind of thing..........But it could be argued that any benefit is a placebo effect, and that it is the belief that the religious group will generate well being that works, as opposed to the actual group.

Science is hard to please.

 

[Æsahættr]

Science is hard to please.

Is that a bad thing? If science wasn't so 'hard to please' then someone could have suggested a few centuries ago that gravity is created by eating too much, therefore the way to acheive flight is to starve yourself, and their idea could have been accepted by the entire scientific community. We wouldn't have made it 10 feet off the ground, let alone put men on the moon.
Religion may well have a beneficial affect on society in many cases, but it seems rather dangerous to trust that it will, rather than try and understand why. If the positive effects of belief could be proved to be a placebo effect then we could try to understand this and manipulate it to our own benefit, perhaps finding other things than religion that work any better.

 

[Smoke]

Well: "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

Therefore the proof of a Prophet is in His words.

Therefore the proof of a religion is in its affects on human civilization.

As the Gospel puts it: "A good tree bears goodly fruit, and an evil tree is fit only for the fire."

Regards,
Scott

Best comment ever on religion, and good, solid evidence against most of them.

 

[Mike182]

What if the belief that makes them happy involves genocide?

then by definition it is still a religion, just one that alot of people disagree with ... ... ...

if a lot of people follow it, then its obviously a religion that appeals to people, but if its the religion of a leader who is like a dictator, then they are forcing it - so it actually has very few followers, just a wide area of effect (am i making sense? )

i guess its a horrid belief from the point of view of others, but it is still a belief

ps. i am not condoning genocide :162:

 

[gnomon]

I would say that there is no scientific proof to any religion. At least in the sense as pertains to the fundamental beliefs that comprise a particular religion. By definition science involves itself with the catalogueing of observations in nature. Religions have always attempted to define that which is beyond what can be observed. To objectively apply the scientific method to what is essentially a subjective group of human opinions on what people wish the world to be for them is a bit much.

It doesn't logically hold that people who claim to follow certain tenets and then act in a virtuous manner prove anything about the tenets themselves. It only shows the demeanor of the individual who makes the claim. It doesn't necessarily follow that others who follow the same tenets will also act in a virtuous manner. So I would greatly deny the proof of a religion is its effect on civilization. All the traditional religions can be shown to varying degrees to be beneficial and harmful. It all depends on when you reference the religion and to what group of people the religion is referenced. As well as the false definition that religions are comprised of their essential goodwill. This has not been an aspect of human cosmology until very recently.

I'm about to meander off topic. While one can apply certain scientific processes to specific claims made by religions (i.e. god created them male and female) it is of no use to attempt to validate or invalidate ones religious beliefs through science.

 

[Fluffy]

Science is hard to please.

Lol I suppose it is. It seems incredibly easy to please if you view it from a philosophical sceptics point of view .