What matters, whats real?

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. Total absence of evidence with the theists which works in favor of atheists.
2. And the what science has found out for creation of the universe and evolution of humans.

Science is a belief system in the end just like theism.

 

[Trinity Stooge]

Doubt makes us think our beliefs are weaker; hubris makes us think our beliefs are stronger.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science is a belief system in the end just like theism.

Science is a exploratory and testing system. Some theories are well established, some not to that extent, others are in the mill.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is a exploratory and testing system. Some theories are well established, some not to that extent, others are in the mill.

Now we both know the following: We doubt theists and know that they can't show that there is a god/gods.

The following can then be learned: It is possible to be a part of the everyday world and hold a belief, which is not true and yet have a life.
I then learned the following: If that is the case of some humans, that could be the case for you and me.
Think about it. What I am saying, is that is a fact, that a human can have a belief, which is not true and yet have a life. So what should you or I be different?

You have to check if it is also the case, that you also hold a belief in this case. You have to doubt yourself just as you doubt others. But most humans are incapable of that and you are one of them. You are no different than a theist in this sense.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If John Doe believes in a god and you don't, why does what's he believes in matter so much to you?

Evidence for a god can neither show a god does or doesn't exist.

The arguement of both has to come from a belief because neither have supporting evidence(a god can neither be proven or disproven)

So my question is what makes anyone think their belief is stronger than the belief of others?

I can not say my belief is stonger or weaker than others, I can only say it is my personal current belief, I am not here to disprove others belief or lack of such.

 

[viole]

If John Doe believes in a god and you don't, why does what's he believes in matter so much to you?

Because he might believe that God commands, say, "abortion is against Me", or "gay should not marry", or "euthanasia is against My law", and enforce in politics, showing their crosses at rallies and such.

If they pray in private, and shut up about their divinity when it comes to moral or community issues, that might affect me too, I have no problem with them. But if they insist, then I will try to knock down their superstition with everything I got.

I have very good friends in Island who believe in trolls and elves, and I have no issue with them,

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because he might believe that God commands, say, "abortion is against Me", or "gay should not marry", or "euthanasia is against My law", and enforce in politics, showing their crosses at rallies and such.

If they pray in private, and shut up about their divinity when it comes to moral or community issues, that might affect me too, I have no problem with them. But if they insist, then I will try to knock down their superstition with everything I got.

I have very good friends in Island who believe in trolls and elves, and I have no issue with them,

Ciao

- viole

And a human might believe in some versions of communism, capitalism, other political/philosophical ideologies and enforce that.

As a naturalist , I have found no evidence that religion is supernatural and in fact religion is natural and the behaviours are natural and similar behaviors can be found outside religion. In effect I treat religion as a part of the human tendency to make belief systems that tries to justify behaviour by trying to establish objective authority, but that is no unique to religion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Science is a belief system in the end just like theism.

And predicated on similar intractable mysteries.

What you can say for both faith in science and faith in God, is that for those willing to suspend their disbelief, each can be shown to add value to the quality of life.

Of course, those who value only the material, have no time for spiritual beliefs. And those who value only the spiritual - there are such people - have no interest in the material, beyond providing for their most basic needs.

We live in a material world, so it makes sense to engage with that. Indeed, to some extent, we all have to. But the material brings us very little in the way of true satisfaction or happiness; so it makes sense to me to at least acknowledge the possibility of something beyond the material, and to engage with that also.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Doubt makes us think our beliefs are weaker; hubris makes us think our beliefs are stronger.

And humility allows us to grow in spirit, free from the tyranny of the Ego.

 

[firedragon]

If John Doe believes in a god and you don't, why does what's he believes in matter so much to you?

Because the opposer has another belief system, and its a religion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Science is a exploratory and testing system. Some theories are well established, some not to that extent, others are in the mill.

Even the best established theories fall eventually, as all empires fall. Though they may bequeath great ruins on which succeeding theories can build; as Copernican astronomy built upon Ptolemaic, for example.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And predicated on similar intractable mysteries.

What you can say for both faith in science and faith in God, is that for those willing to suspend their disbelief, each can be shown to add value to the quality of life.

Of course, those who value only the material, have no time for spiritual beliefs. And those who value only the spiritual - there are such people - have no interest in the material, beyond providing for their most basic needs.

We live in a material world, so it makes sense to engage with that. Indeed, to some extent, we all have to. But the material brings us very little in the way of true satisfaction or happiness; so it makes sense to me to at least acknowledge the possibility of something beyond the material, and to engage with that also.

We don't live in a material world. We live in a world that have material aspects or rather objective/physical aspects, but that are not the only one. There are subjective/inter-subjective/psychological/social ones, which can't be reduced down to material ones:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Justanatheist]

Science is a belief system in the end just like theism.

If science is a belief system it is an open belief system whilst religion is a closed belief system.

Science is open to testing and criticism, indeed peer review and falsifiability are essential to science.

Religion is closed with knowledge being accepted or revealed.

So they are not the same.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Science is a exploratory and testing system. Some theories are well established, some not to that extent, others are in the mill.

I can say i do not disagree with your statement here but I found the same in sufism, it is an exploration of the self, or ego if you will, to know one self. So in a way scientific way of thinking could be used in spiritual practice too
In my understanding that is

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If science is a belief system it is an open belief system whilst religion is a closed belief system.

Science is open to testing and criticism, indeed peer review and falsifiability are essential to science.

Religion is closed with knowledge being accepted or revealed.

So they are not the same.

No, there are versions of claims based on science, that are closed.
A short example:
You will find at least one poster here, who claims that science and logic can prove that there are no gods.
Science is a social construct and have variants just like religion.
You are simple a member of a subset within what you believe about science.

I mean, I seem to recall that on this forum or maybe another forum, but that is not the point. The point is that the poster claim science proved metaphysical physicalism.
Anyone who claim science, uses science, just as anybody claims Christianity uses Christianity.

"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981] "

Indeed even if you read this Wiki article, you will notice that there is no one variant of science:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

For a practical example, there is a current thread about morality and science, where a poster claims that science can do morality, yet there is this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So no, science is in some versions closed, because in effect some people use to claim absolute facts, which can't be doubted. Just as some religious people do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If science is a belief system it is an open belief system whilst religion is a closed belief system.

Science is open to testing and criticism, indeed peer review and falsifiability are essential to science.

Religion is closed with knowledge being accepted or revealed.

So they are not the same.

What you say about religion and religious thought is a sweeping generalisation.

The spirit of religious enquiry is not so different than the spirit of scientific enquiry. Both ask questions intended to take us beyond the surface of things.
Conversely, I’m willing to bet that there are nearly as many scientists clinging to outmoded and discredited ideas, as there are religious practitioners.

Of course, spiritually enlightened individuals may attempt to offer us moral guidance, while the scientifically enlightened do not do this. The jury is still out on whether this is more strength than weakness, and for who.

 

[Justanatheist]

No, there are versions of claims based on science, that are closed.
A short example:
You will find at least one poster here, who claims that science and logic can prove that there are no gods.
Science is a social construct and have variants just like religion.
You are simple a member of a subset within what you believe about science.

I mean, I seem to recall that on this forum or maybe another forum, but that is not the point. The point is that the poster claim science proved metaphysical physicalism.
Anyone who claim science, uses science, just as anybody claims Christianity uses Christianity.

"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981] "

Indeed even if you read this Wiki article, you will notice that there is no one variant of science:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

For a practical example, there is a current thread about morality and science, where a poster claims that science can do morality, yet there is this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So no, science is in some versions closed, because in effect some people use to claim absolute facts, which can't be doubted. Just as some religious people do.

You have shown how science is an open belief system, my response to your poster would be that science does not prove anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have shown how science is an open belief system, my response to your poster would be that science does not prove anything.

Yes, that is your absolute position. Science doesn't have anything to do with proof or truth. This is just one version of science. There are other ones.

In effect you are like all other humans, in that you are in part a product of nature, nurture and culture. That shows because you believe in a localized, temporal and unique cultural version of science, yet you treat it as an absolute: "...science does not prove anything." Either that is just an opinion or it is true.

 

[Justanatheist]

What you say about religion and religious thought is a sweeping generalisation.

The spirit of religious enquiry is not so different than the spirit of scientific enquiry. Both ask questions intended to take us beyond the surface of things.
Conversely, I’m willing to bet that there are nearly as many scientists clinging to outmoded and discredited ideas, as there are religious practitioners.

Of course, spiritually enlightened individuals may attempt to offer us moral guidance, while the scientifically enlightened do not do this. The jury is still out on whether this is more strength than weakness, and for who.

Lets look at the words of one of the most well known apologetics in the world, William Lane Craig.

“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”

We can see how religion is a closed system, it has its fundamental conclusions and no matter what evidence or argument is offered its core truths must be accepted as such.
It is none falsifiable.

Science on the other hand would rip down any theory for which a better theory is produced, in fact we can see where science has done this time and time again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lets look at the words of one of the most well known apologetics in the world, William Lane Craig.

“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”

We can see how religion is a closed system, it has its fundamental conclusions and no matter what evidence or argument is offered its core truths must be accepted as such.
It is none falsifiable.

Science on the other hand would rip down any theory for which a better theory is produced, in fact we can see where science has done this time and time again.

What is religion? Are all versions of religion Christian? What is your evidence for that? What is your evidence for what religion is?