Religious Belief and Scientific Proof

[Nakosis]

I think science is a good tool for humans to understand this physical realm better, but in my mind i can not see science will get physical proof from the spiritual real, i do think
the spiritual realm can only be experienced though practicing a spiritual teaching. Because we do not ser the spiritual realm with our physical eyes, only with the wisdom eye. That is how i understand it

I can create just about any spiritual realm I want. Great if you stick to one spiritual path but it tends to get eclectic if you take on several different beliefs.

Spirituality doesn't require consistency, at least not between you and me. That's why there as so many different beliefs existing. Science tries to make knowledge consistent between everyone.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I can create just about any spiritual realm I want. Great if you stick to one spiritual path but it tends to get eclectic if you take on several different beliefs.

Spirituality doesn't require consistency, at least not between you and me. That's why there as so many different beliefs existing. Science tries to make knowledge consistent between everyone.

I think i understand what you say The different in our understanding is that for me the spiritual realm is as "solid" as the physical realm. And in my understanding spirituality is very consistent in the way that if we practice "wrong" we will not obtain more wisdom.
I am not sure what science do if they do not get the "expected" result or it even shows a very different result of what they expected

 

[Vee]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

If it's unproveable, why should anyone expect proof?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If it's unproveable, why should anyone expect proof?

The "proof" is within the teaching itself When someone practice it, and actually follow what the teaching says we should do, we gain the inner wisdom/ inner experience of it. And we realize that it is true because it affects our life deeply.
But the "proof" is only showing itself on a personal level, not on a public or scientific scale. (in my understanding)

 

[halbhh]

science requires standards, belief doesn't.

Just to know, in Christianity according to Jesus's words, there are standards we have to meet that are pretty strong, and not trivial (and only some even know them well among the 2 billion that think of their background as 'Christian'). Yet, we can also call this faith a belief in the sense of referring to those "that believe". So, it's a belief with standards really. Not trying to nitpick, but it can seem at times from some that Christianity is a belief without standards, but that's not a kind of belief Christ teaches us.

 

[halbhh]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

Yes, that's fair to say it's ironic to expect 'proof...in something unproveable'.... ;-) I think it's a good point also.

I often try to point out to people asking some variant of "Where is God" (one of the hundred or more equivalent questions), that we learn from Christ and generally in scripture (over and over in scripture actually), that God wants "faith" from us -- belief without proof ahead of time. (Faith is a kind of willingness to trust in the Ultimate Good, I sometimes explain to some that are willing to hear that)

 

[Nakosis]

Just to know, in Christianity according to Jesus's words, there are standards we have to meet that are pretty strong, and not trivial (and only some even know them well among the 2 billion that think of their background as 'Christian'). Yet, we can also call this faith a belief in the sense of referring to those "that believe". So, it's a belief with standards really. Not trying to nitpick, but it can seem at times from some that Christianity is a belief without standards, but that's not a kind of belief Christ teaches us.

Didn't say there were no standards just no necessary standards. I understand your belief has standards, other Christians, other religions have different standards amongst themselves.

I see a difference between the knowledge of a standard and standard of validation for knowledge.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Didn't say there were no standards just no necessary standards. I understand your belief has standards, other Christians, other religions have different standards amongst themselves.

I see a difference between the knowledge of a standard and standard of validation for knowledge.

I find your answer really interesting here @Nakosis Is it ok i make a new OP with a question from this answer you gave? (the part with the standard in religion/spirituality)

 

[halbhh]

Didn't say there were no standards just no necessary standards. I understand your belief has standards, other Christians, other religions have different standards amongst themselves.

I see a difference between the knowledge of a standard and standard of validation for knowledge.

Definitely. "Faith" is belief without seeing (without proof). It's a kind of trust in the ultimate Good, as I sometimes try to explain, that He will come through for us in the end. So, it's very explicitly a belief without proof. And having the proof ahead of time would make the resulting understanding something other than "faith", but "faith" is explicitly what God wants from us. One could say that "faith" is a kind of achievement of trust, if you like. Or a will towards the good ("good" in the sense of an existent), is another way to try to say what it is like.

 

[metis]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

IMO, yes.

 

[ChristineM]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

Science does not prove. It experiments, measures, observes the natural and physical.

 

[Nakosis]

I find your answer really interesting here @Nakosis Is it ok i make a new OP with a question from this answer you gave? (the part with the standard in religion/spirituality)

FIne by me.

 

[Nakosis]

Definitely. "Faith" is belief without seeing (without proof). It's a kind of trust in the ultimate Good, as I sometimes try to explain, that He will come through for us in the end. So, it's very explicitly a belief without proof. And having the proof ahead of time would make the resulting understanding something other than "faith", but "faith" is explicitly what God wants from us. One could say that "faith" is a kind of achievement of trust, if you like. Or a will towards the good ("good" in the sense of an existent), is another way to try to say what it is like.

Without a way to validate what we accept as true, there are no corrections for what we believe. The boundaries of religious belief are accepted on faith with no way to test the truth of those boundaries. You could be wrong without the means of knowing that you are wrong.

I can believe otherwise. I can believe that want God wants from us is different than what you believe God wants from us with no means to validate who is correct. Your claims about God, my claims about God, my neighbor Joe's claims about God have equal validity, which is none beyond the fact that it's been claimed really.

So to me, what is the point of making claims about God which can't be tested for accuracy?

 

[MNoBody]

Personally

 

[Unveiled Artist]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

Yes. Though they solve this by separating the mundane from the spiritual.

For example, they say god can't be proven by science. Yet, god is in the natural world insofar he makes himself present to people and they experience it with all their senses. But when asked what they experienced, they can't describe it (or choose not to).

I'd say let the spiritual be spiritual and science be science. Unless they can support each other without the confirmed biases of the people involved, yes, it is an irony.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

Pretty much, yes. While faith should not be in something that has been disproven, since faith is not irrational, the essence of faith is that it is trust in those things for which we don't really have enough evidence, usually because such evidence cannot be found or it is outside the scope of evidentiary findings.

 

[blü 2]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

It's true that I assume the most fundamental things ─ that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, that reason is a valid tool. In each case I have to assume them because I can't demonstrate their correctness without first assuming they're correct.

But I share those assumptions with everyone here ─ well, certainly the first two.

And it's also my view that outside of this sentence there are no absolute statements. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to offer me some examples.

But with those things in place, the problem for the Abrahamic religions is the one I keep returning to ─ there's no definition / description of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God or not; and there's no definition of 'godness', the quality a real God would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time and so on, would lack.

That's to say, in those religions there's no concept of a real god. That only leaves imaginary gods.

So we never get to the unprovability stage, because the concept of a real god is incoherent.

 

[Fool]

Just to know, in Christianity according to Jesus's words, there are standards we have to meet that are pretty strong, and not trivial (and only some even know them well among the 2 billion that think of their background as 'Christian'). Yet, we can also call this faith a belief in the sense of referring to those "that believe". So, it's a belief with standards really. Not trying to nitpick, but it can seem at times from some that Christianity is a belief without standards, but that's not a kind of belief Christ teaches us.

yes, faith without works is d-e-a-d

 

[izzy88]

is it hypocritical and ironic to expect scientific proof while holding a belief in something unproveable?

I don't understand what you're asking.

Are you saying theists shouldn't expect scientific proof of their beliefs?

 

[Fool]

I don't understand what you're asking.

Are you saying theists shouldn't expect scientific proof of their beliefs?

i saw a thread today, where a theist asked an atheist for proof of something. its interesting that some people can't see themselves in the reflection of other.