Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
And the personal motivation aspect can be better derived from other sources.
...

Please flesh that out.

 

[Polymath257]

...
And the personal motivation aspect can be better derived from other sources.
...

Please flesh that out.

Well, getting motivation from fiction, art, music, etc seems like a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. Even acknowledging belief in a supernatural as (as I believe) a fiction, allows for the motivational factors but reduces the ideological factors.

We need to encourage people to be good because it is a good thing as opposed to to getting some sort of benefit in an afterlife. Why introduce the extra variables? Give people hope by making society better and encouraging people to do the work for that as opposed to pointing to going to some paradise after death.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

I know how scientific method works. You try something, you get a result. It doesn't, you try again with a revised assumption..

Then let's test the assumption that you know how science works.

You and your assistant are doing a study that involves repeated measures. Your assistant suggests a fixed effect regression model would best suit your data. Are they correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, getting motivation from fiction, art, music, etc seems like a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. Even acknowledging belief in a supernatural as (as I believe) a fiction, allows for the motivational factors but reduces the ideological factors.

We need to encourage people to be good because it is a good thing as opposed to to getting some sort of benefit in an afterlife. Why introduce the extra variables? Give people hope by making society better and encouraging people to do the work for that as opposed to pointing to going to some paradise after death.

Well, yes. If you could just solve death. Or the tendency in some people regardless of religion or not to believe in Objectively Good and all the other versions.
I consider religion as a subset of human beliefs and have yet to find anything in religion which didn't turned out to be natural or have a non-religious brother or cousin.
As for the actual afterlife some non-religious people in effect believe in something similar. They just invoke the future and all would be better if we all just believed like them. Have you ever come across agrarian anarchists? We just have to return to small self-reliant agrarian groups and all would be better. Never mind that 90% of human would have to die.

So in effect if we were all rational like you. Yeah, but the "irrationals" are not just the religious ones. But I do get you. Even if I am religious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then let's test the assumption that you know how science works.

You and your assistant are doing a study that involves repeated measures. Your assistant suggests a fixed effect regression model would best suit your data. Are they correct?

So that is all what science is?

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

So that is all what science is?

It takes years of dedicated studying just to become proficient in one branch of Science. So what do you think?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It takes years of dedicated studying just to become proficient in one branch of Science. So what do you think?

How come it is Science and not science with you?

 

[Spirit of Light]

And I am sure you mean your God and your religion. . . .

That's how religion work, pretend you are right, even when you are wrong, and pretend everything reloves around you and your beliefs. Clearly the work of humans.

My God, My religion?
I do not own a God or a religion, i have my faith and beliefs in Islam, but who am i to tell others who they should believe in or not?

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

How come it is Science and not science with you?

Because in that context I was using it as a proper noun.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because in that context I was using it as a proper noun.

Well, to me it is science as it is culturally relative what science is.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Well, to me it is science as it is culturally relative what science is.

I was just trying to adhere to proper grammar. I won't read too much into that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Reliability is always reliable to someone. It is subjective because it is to someone. To you subjectively reliable has to be objective. To me that is different.
If science it has to be objectively reliable to me, where as religion has to be subjectively reliable to me.

So what I find reliable, depends on what it is about as a part of the world.

It doesn't have to be objective... but it had better also be reliable to me, or else I, personally, am going to deem it NOT RELIABLE. You're so obsessed with your own subjective experience with this things reliability that you want to completely discount mine. Why is that? (See how this works BOTH ways?)

And therein lies my ultimate point - if something is found to be reliable to ALL OF US, I would say it entirely more important to ALL OF US than something that is found to be reliable to ONE of us. Would you not agree?

You can say that something is important or reliable to you, fine. But don't go saying that I must also recognize its importance or reliability for myself. It isn't necessary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It doesn't have to be objective... but it had better also be reliable to me, or else I, personally, am going to deem it NOT RELIABLE. You're so obsessed with your own subjective experience with this things reliability that you want to completely discount mine. Why is that?

And therein lies my ultimate point - if something is found to be reliable to ALL OF US, I would say it entirely more important to ALL OF US than something that is found to be reliable to ONE of us. Would you not agree?

You can say that something is important or reliable to you, fine. But don't go saying that I must also recognize its importance or reliability for myself. It isn't necessary.

Well, it is a good question. But no, sorry. We humans are a product of biological evolution and the end point of that, is that we don't all have survive or have a good life in order for the human species to survive.
I get what you are getting at, but the key is this: "I would say..."
I do believe like you do, but that is still a belief and it is not reliable as not all humans believe in it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, it is a good question. But no, sorry. We humans are a product of biological evolution and the end point of that, is that we don't all have survive or have a good life in order for the human species to survive.
I get what you are getting at, but the key is this: "I would say..."
I do believe like you do, but that is still a belief and it is not reliable as not all humans believe in it.

But in the end, even YOU adhere to most things that we ALL find reliable - and far fewer things that only you, or a select few find reliable. I guarantee it. And some of those things you find reliable are probably ONLY APPLICABLE TO YOU. This makes them not at all important to all of the rest of those around you for VERY GOOD REASON. Which is precisely why you're going to get pushback on religious ideas from some people who just don't find them reasonable/reliable/realistic. For you to go on to say "but I believe it!" is irrelevant. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. It's not going to matter to me, unless you can convince me why it MUST matter to me. You, and all the other religious/spiritual types, fail miserably at this day in and day out. And yet someone else's success in convincing you that you must consume nutrients in order to survive is entirely obvious and unchallenged. That's why you will fail. You don't have that, and likely never will. When you do, come to me, and we'll talk... until then, I don't want to hear anything about how I am somehow failing in understanding when I don't believe as you do, or dismiss "God" concepts out of hand. They don't matter in the way that other things matter. They just don't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But in the end, even YOU adhere to most things that we ALL find reliable - and far fewer things that only you, or a select few find reliable. I guarantee it. And some of those things you find reliable are probably ONLY APPLICABLE TO YOU. This makes them not at all important to all of the rest of those around you for VERY GOOD REASON. Which is precisely why you're going to get pushback on religious ideas from some people who just don't find them reasonable/reliable/realistic. For you to go on to say "but I believe it!" is irrelevant. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. It's not going to matter to me, unless you can convince me why it MUST matter to me. You, and all the other religious/spiritual types, fail miserably at this day in and day out. And yet someone else's success in convincing you that you must consume nutrients in order to survive is entirely obvious and unchallenged. That's why you will fail. You don't have that, and likely never will. When you do, come to me, and we'll talk... until then, I don't want to hear anything about how I am somehow failing in understanding when I don't believe as you do, or dismiss "God" concepts out of hand. They don't matter in the way that other things matter. They just don't.

Was it good to say it aloud?
I do accept that this is what you believe in as you. I used to be an atheist.
And I am still a limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativist. So I do get you.

So now you MUST convince me, that I MUST become like you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Was it good to say it aloud?
I do accept that this is what you believe in as you. I used to be an atheist.
And I am still a limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativist. So I do get you.

So now you MUST convince me, that I MUST become like you.

No... you're the one with ideas you want accepted by others... not me. You don't need to "become like" me at all. Not in the least. What you need to do is come up with some compelling justifications for your wacky ideas. Focus on that.

 

[metis]

To the OP question, without a doubt it's science. Religion, but it's nature ["faith"], is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No... you're the one with ideas you want accepted by others... not me. You don't need to "become like" me at all. Not in the least. What you need to do is come up with some compelling justifications for your wacky ideas. Focus on that.

Well, there are no justifications possible in the end, because we all run into Agrippa's, Münchhausen's or Fries' Trilemma.
So I don't believe in justification.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, there are no justifications possible in the end, because we all run into Agrippa's, Münchhausen's or Fries' Trilemma.
So I don't believe in justification.

Then why do you do anything? What justification did you have for imbibing any water/fluid today? What justification did you have in finding warmth, or procuring food for yourself? What justification did you have for moving about at all? How about what justification do you have for using your muscles to stand upright, walk, use your skills of balance not to topple over? Or do you mean you don't feel you need to provide or even have any justifications for any of your actions? If that's what you mean, then you are simply lying to yourself - delusion. You work through the justification for just about any intended expenditure of time or energy - just like the rest of us. It's just that some specific justifications you have for doing some of the more outrageous things you do aren't acceptable as justification by some of us others... and while it doesn't matter that we don't accept it, it bugs the absolute crap out of you because you badly WANT us to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why do you do anything? What justification did you have for imbibing any water/fluid today? What justification did you have in finding warmth, or procuring food for yourself? What justification did you have for moving about at all? How about what justification do you have for using your muscles to stand upright, walk, use your skills of balance not to topple over? Or do you mean you don't feel you need to provide or even have any justifications for any of your actions? If that's what you mean, then you are simply lying to yourself - delusion. You work through the justification for just about any intended expenditure of time or energy - just like the rest of us. It's just that some specific justifications you have for doing some of the more outrageous things you do aren't acceptable as justification by some of us others... and while it doesn't matter that we don't accept it, it bugs the absolute crap out of you because you badly WANT us to.

My beliefs appear to work. I just want to level the playing field and get you to admit that is also all you have. Beliefs and no justification. Justification is philosophy and it didn't work.
BTW it is interesting with all that "wacky" and "delusion" you throw around. Are you an expert in that?