• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which is Best for Building Consensus Between People? Religion or Science?

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
The above is how methodologists like you will never be able to guide the World in to consensus.

I counted several insults there.
We're done ..
:p

ROFL... of course anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would understand that I never claimed that the scientific method COULD achieve consensus.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The improved parts of science are called “hypotheses.” This fundamentally differs from belief.

Improved? Overhauled? Put on the scrap heap with all the other "science" that someone thought was a good idea, but failed the "fact" test?

Hypotheses..."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. . . . a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth."

"Hypotheses" is what someone "believes" might be true.....and isn't that what we find in theoretical science? Those little words "might have" or "could have" that basically scream "this is just an idea but....it might be true" and then before you know it, that "idea" is somehow now turned into a scientific fact. Sorry but they'll have to do better than that. Science is not my religion.

Assuming that all science must be true because some science is true, is like assuming that all religion must be good because some religions are good.

Opinions are all we have, and they are based on many things.....we just have to hope that our opinion is correct.....but there are no guarantees. Those confident of their standing with God may well come to disappointment. (Matthew 7:21-23)

It isn't up to us anyway.....it is God who issues the invitations into his spiritual family. (John 6:65) No one gets in the door without an invitation.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Improved? Overhauled? Put on the scrap heap with all the other "science" that someone thought was a good idea, but failed the "fact" test?

Hypotheses..."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. . . . a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth."

"Hypotheses" is what someone "believes" might be true.....and isn't that what we find in theoretical science? Those little words "might have" or "could have" that basically scream "this is just an idea but....it might be true" and then before you know it, that "idea" is somehow now turned into a scientific fact. Sorry but they'll have to do better than that. Science is not my religion.

Assuming that all science must be true because some science is true, is like assuming that all religion must be good because some religions are good.

Opinions are all we have, and they are based on many things.....we just have to hope that our opinion is correct.....but there are no guarantees. Those confident of their standing with God may well come to disappointment. (Matthew 7:21-23)

It isn't up to us anyway.....it is God who issues the invitations into his spiritual family. (John 6:65) No one gets in the door without an invitation.

"Hypotheses" is what someone "believes" might be true.....and isn't that what we find in theoretical science? Those little words "might have" or "could have" that basically scream "this is just an idea but....it might be true" and then before you know it, that "idea" is somehow now turned into a scientific fact. Sorry but they'll have to do better than that. Science is not my religion.

Is this truly your comprehension of how the scientific method works? You were taught in school that someone comes up with a hypotheses - "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. . . . a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth." and then 'before you know it' that idea is SOMEHOW turned into a scientific fact.

Didn't anyone ever explain to you that the SOMEHOW is that whoever made the hypothesis must then find a way of testing the hypothesis in a way so that it can duplicated by others? And that ONLY after a hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and the results of those tests reliably indicate that the hypothesis is true does anyone consider it to be anything close to a scientific fact.

The only things that are being tossed onto the scrap heap are untestable hypothesis or hypotheses that have been tested and the results of the tests indicate that they are not true. So 'science' isn't being tossed into the scrap heap. It's the scientific method that enables us to determine which hypothesis should or should not be tossed into said scrap heap.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I think she is saying that she has her beliefs so science be damned.

I have no issue with real science...the provable kind.....the unquestionable kind....I do have an issue with theoretical science however....the one that is based on hypotheses and questionable "evidence". The one that presents assumptions as facts and makes statements about creation that lead people to believe that its all just a series of fortunate flukes. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I already have a belief system...I don't need to add to my belief system, things that fight with what I already believe. I choose to believe God rather than men who might change their mind on things next week. You can believe whatever you wish....we all have that choice...don't we?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Is this truly your comprehension of how the scientific method works? You were taught in school that someone comes up with a hypotheses - "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. . . . a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth." and then 'before you know it' that idea is SOMEHOW turned into a scientific fact.

It is my experience when researching this topic that the "evidence" presented to support any hypothesis is largely a matter of interpretation. Who in the scientific community is going to interpret evidence that doesn't accord with their peers' expectations? We all know what happens to anyone who might present something that does not accord with that expectation...its career suicide.

Didn't anyone ever explain to you that the SOMEHOW is that whoever made the hypothesis must then find a way of testing the hypothesis in a way so that it can duplicated by others? And that ONLY after a hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and the results of those tests reliably indicate that the hypothesis is true does anyone consider it to be anything close to a scientific fact.

This is a joke isn't it? Let me just run science's first premise before you......a microscopic, single celled organism, that just "happened" to pop into existence for no apparent reason, came fully equipped to transform itself, over millions of years, into something the size of a three story building....and the "evidence for that is....? And this is testable by what means? Seriously?

Its the first premise that has all the flaws.....everything is built on that first premise, which can't be proven under any circumstances. IOW, you have a monumental edifice of supposition and guesswork that is supported by matchticks......invisible ones.

The only things that are being tossed onto the scrap heap are untestable hypothesis or hypotheses that have been tested and the results of the tests indicate that they are not true.

That in itself is sooo not true. Nothing in science's first premise is testable. No one knows where that original life came from....except the one who created it; the greatest scientist in existence....and you don't believe him.

So 'science' isn't being tossed into the scrap heap. It's the scientific method that enables us to determine which hypothesis should or should not be tossed into said scrap heap.

I call the "scientific method" in many cases, nothing more than smoke and mirrors....educated guesswork. Not enough for me to stake my life on. You can if you like.

What science can prove by experimentation, is "adaptation", which is an inherent mechanism in all lifeforms, large and small...the ability to create minor changes in its physical appearance or function to facilitate a change in environment or food source. In no experiment did the creature mutate into something else. The flies stayed flies, the fish stayed fish and the finches didn't just stay birds, they stayed finches....just new varieties of the same family. No one knows how this happened.....no one was there to observe any of it except the Creator and he had it recorded....just not in scientific terms....it would have been wasted on an scientifically uneducated community. You don't have to believe in him, but I do for many valid reasons. How many fortunate flukes can you have before you run out of statistics?

Heck, man didn't even know about the spread of disease by microorganisms until the invention of the microscope....and even at the turn of last century simple hand washing between patients could have stopped the spread of many infectious diseases. Yet quarantine procedures and washing of hands and contaminated articles was written in Israel's laws thousands of years ago. They never knew why, but we do.

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos Islands. He saw different varieties of the same creatures that he knew existed on the mainland. The iguanas were still iguanas, adapted to a marine existence and the tortoises were still tortoises, but again, a species adapted to island life.

Science took what Darwin observed and ran away it, turning speculation and wild assumptions into scientific facts when there weren't any. Not all science is wrong, but when it is wrong, it is ridiculous! How many frauds have presented "evidence" for evolution only to have it exposed as fake? If it was truth, there would be no need to fake it. All the evidence would be there, including the phantom intermediary species that are somehow always missing.

You can believe it if you wish...I'll pass.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Improved? Overhauled? Put on the scrap heap with all the other "science" that someone thought was a good idea, but failed the "fact" test?

Hypotheses..."a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. . . . a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth."

"Hypotheses" is what someone "believes" might be true.....and isn't that what we find in theoretical science? Those little words "might have" or "could have" that basically scream "this is just an idea but....it might be true" and then before you know it, that "idea" is somehow now turned into a scientific fact. Sorry but they'll have to do better than that. Science is not my religion.

Assuming that all science must be true because some science is true, is like assuming that all religion must be good because some religions are good.

Opinions are all we have, and they are based on many things.....we just have to hope that our opinion is correct.....but there are no guarantees. Those confident of their standing with God may well come to disappointment. (Matthew 7:21-23)

It isn't up to us anyway.....it is God who issues the invitations into his spiritual family. (John 6:65) No one gets in the door without an invitation.
I was typing on my phone which autocorrected “unprovable” to “improved.”

Looks like you’re posing a straw man. Scientific theories are proved and are factual. That’s not religion — nor is it designed to be.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It is my experience when researching this topic that the "evidence" presented to support any hypothesis is largely a matter of interpretation. Who in the scientific community is going to interpret evidence that doesn't accord with their peers' expectations? We all know what happens to anyone who might present something that does not accord with that expectation...its career suicide.

Scientists disagree with each other and publish new evidence that contradicts prior understanding all the time. It's often what makes scientists' careers, rather than killing them.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
It is my experience when researching this topic that the "evidence" presented to support any hypothesis is largely a matter of interpretation. Who in the scientific community is going to interpret evidence that doesn't accord with their peers' expectations? We all know what happens to anyone who might present something that does not accord with that expectation...its career suicide.



This is a joke isn't it? Let me just run science's first premise before you......a microscopic, single celled organism, that just "happened" to pop into existence for no apparent reason, came fully equipped to transform itself, over millions of years, into something the size of a three story building....and the "evidence for that is....? And this is testable by what means? Seriously?

Its the first premise that has all the flaws.....everything is built on that first premise, which can't be proven under any circumstances. IOW, you have a monumental edifice of supposition and guesswork that is supported by matchticks......invisible ones.



That in itself is sooo not true. Nothing in science's first premise is testable. No one knows where that original life came from....except the one who created it; the greatest scientist in existence....and you don't believe him.



I call the "scientific method" in many cases, nothing more than smoke and mirrors....educated guesswork. Not enough for me to stake my life on. You can if you like.

What science can prove by experimentation, is "adaptation", which is an inherent mechanism in all lifeforms, large and small...the ability to create minor changes in its physical appearance or function to facilitate a change in environment or food source. In no experiment did the creature mutate into something else. The flies stayed flies, the fish stayed fish and the finches didn't just stay birds, they stayed finches....just new varieties of the same family. No one knows how this happened.....no one was there to observe any of it except the Creator and he had it recorded....just not in scientific terms....it would have been wasted on an scientifically uneducated community. You don't have to believe in him, but I do for many valid reasons. How many fortunate flukes can you have before you run out of statistics?

Heck, man didn't even know about the spread of disease by microorganisms until the invention of the microscope....and even at the turn of last century simple hand washing between patients could have stopped the spread of many infectious diseases. Yet quarantine procedures and washing of hands and contaminated articles was written in Israel's laws thousands of years ago. They never knew why, but we do.

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos Islands. He saw different varieties of the same creatures that he knew existed on the mainland. The iguanas were still iguanas, adapted to a marine existence and the tortoises were still tortoises, but again, a species adapted to island life.

Science took what Darwin observed and ran away it, turning speculation and wild assumptions into scientific facts when there weren't any. Not all science is wrong, but when it is wrong, it is ridiculous! How many frauds have presented "evidence" for evolution only to have it exposed as fake? If it was truth, there would be no need to fake it. All the evidence would be there, including the phantom intermediary species that are somehow always missing.

You can believe it if you wish...I'll pass.

LOL

Thank you! I forgot how amusing it can be to watch you demonstrate your phenomenal ignorance on this subject. I really did need the laugh. You have a wonderful New Year!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm a fan of science, but only when combined with friendly humor.
(One who only offends will likely be ignored.)
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Granted. But that's holding science to a pretty high standard. Let's ask a more reasonable question. Can science help to solve an existential crisis? For example, would we as a species be more likely to do something decisive about climate change if we all accepted the current scientific consensus (broadly speaking) on it? Or does it help to solve that existential problem for us all to have our own notions of what the problem is?
Such decisions^ are made by the politicians. Will they, if it doesn't suit their politics, please?

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
OK....... I got your direction about 'pettifogging' so let me just jump straight to your own decision to alter the question in your very next post...... So it wasn't me.... OK?


Excellent...... a more reasonable question.


An existing crisis......


First we would need to understand that the overheating of the World and all that this condition is going to impact on everything here, why don't we agree that 'science' caused all this 'existential crisis' in the first place?


Neither is 'best' as you've already accepted, and we do need to understand that if mankind had kept away from science, immersed in amazing fantasies and mythical deities the jolly old Earth would be in much better shape than it is.

But to offer a better suggestion than your two I would suggest that the one of the very first candidates for 'Most helpful' would be a common language. From there we could look at 'diplomacy studies' and 'humanities'.

Sorry, but your choice of 'best' or 'most helpful', is not the best....... we need humanities, communication....... first. IMO.
" why don't we agree that 'science' caused all this 'existential crisis' in the first place?"

Hear! Hear!.
A relevant question friends, isn't it, please?

Regards
 
Top