best arguments against religion (no theists)
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
From a religious perspective, those ("prayer cured my cancer") are not actually religious claims.
Scientists would do themselves and everyone else a big favor if they would actually assess religion with the standards of that religion itself.
Instead, scientists often take as representatives of religion just any person who claims to be religious, regardless of what the internal religious hierarchy may be.
It is a completely unscientific choice of demographics.
A model is simply an explanation. Lightgigantic seems to think that there is something about life that cannot be reduced to a material explanation.
I am interested in the dynamics between scientists (and those who want to be that) and religion(ists), and this is the perfect place for this.
@Signal --
Regardless of whether they are considered religious claims from the perspective of the religious, they are still religious claims of an empirical nature. In other words, they can be measured and tested just like anything else in science. Claiming that Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified is also one such claim, and it's a claim that can only have one right answer, either he did or he didn't. And if it's possible to investigate these claims scientifically, then why shouldn't we?
Which standards should we use? Scientists quite obviously can't use religious standards of evidence when assessing religion, nor can they limit their data to just the positive as the various religions almost always do. To do so would completely destroy any assessment made.
Can you show me some examples of this? Because the studies I've seen haven't had this problem, if it's as endemic as you say it is finding some examples shouldn't be too difficult.
Regardless of whether they are considered religious claims from the perspective of the religious, they are still religious claims of an empirical nature. In other words, they can be measured and tested just like anything else in science. Claiming that Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified is also one such claim, and it's a claim that can only have one right answer, either he did or he didn't. And if it's possible to investigate these claims scientifically, then why shouldn't we?
Which standards should we use? Scientists quite obviously can't use religious standards of evidence when assessing religion, nor can they limit their data to just the positive as the various religions almost always do. To do so would completely destroy any assessment made.
Can you show me some examples of this? Because the studies I've seen haven't had this problem, if it's as endemic as you say it is finding some examples shouldn't be too difficult.
Do you know a study where they took as relevant representatives of religion only those that were considered the most advanced by that religion?
@Signal --
That wouldn't be an accurate representation of the religion as a whole, now would it? To get accurate representation they must take from every strata of the religion, ideally in representative numbers.
However they did do something similar to what you're asking when they were doing neurological studies on buddhists and found that while they meditated the activity of their ego center of the brain was either reduced or stopped completely. Perhaps you're suggesting that this study is better because buddhists don't have traditional hierarchies in the way that most other religions do.
But do you have any examples where they botched the selection process for the studies? Again, if it's as prevalent as you say it is then these examples shouldn't be too difficult to find.
That wouldn't be an accurate representation of the religion as a whole, now would it? To get accurate representation they must take from every strata of the religion, ideally in representative numbers.
However they did do something similar to what you're asking when they were doing neurological studies on buddhists and found that while they meditated the activity of their ego center of the brain was either reduced or stopped completely. Perhaps you're suggesting that this study is better because buddhists don't have traditional hierarchies in the way that most other religions do.
But do you have any examples where they botched the selection process for the studies? Again, if it's as prevalent as you say it is then these examples shouldn't be too difficult to find.
OK - I can accept that. I am here to try and understand why some of the religious want to subvert science.
Why should scientists want to assess religion at all? That's like asking a mathematician for his review of Hamlet.
I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt and offered him an opportunity to explain his answer since "no" is quite plainly the only option available unless one wants to come across as a nutcase donchathink?
what would be the dominant strata in science? High school students studying biology, chemistry and physics I guess?
Religions are phenomena. Scientists study phenomena. Scientists have studied prayer, meditation, yoga pretty extensively. I would assume that other phenomena within religion have also been studied by scientists.
What do yoga and meditation have to do with religion? And prayer consistently comes up as "no discernable effect".
You still haven't provided what you think is the logical response to the question.
(PS - if you answer "yes" please explain "how" -- just in case there any anal types out there that might get the wrong idea about logical consistency and what not)
Seriously, that is a rather odd question. They are techniques developed within religions as part of those religions.
And what is the point of this statement. Again, prayer is one of many religious phenomena that have been studied by scientists.
Why do you think scientists should not study/research religions, their practices and other religious phenomena?
Another area of scientific research of religion has been in neuroscience, using MRI to try to understand what is happening in the brains of people who are having religious experiences.
I can see no reason science should not investigate religions.
I'm about as non-religious as they come and I can meditate. It has nothing to do with religion. "Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream..."
The only religious claims science can comment on are those is which they make scientific claims... (i.e - the Earth is only 6 thousand years old.. or the universe was created in 6 days... you know, stupid shit like that)
Unless, of course, you've got a test for God... Or even the after-life...
Well, actually yes it does have something to do with religion and was developed in religions. I did not say all meditators are theists or religious. And perhaps what you do does not have the same results as what religious meditators do.
This isn't really a response to what I said. There are all sorts of religious phenomena that can be and are being studied by science. Specific claims can also be tested or looked at scientifically.
I wonder why scientists investigate religion, and would like to know.
I don't know why they do it, but they do it.
The demographics we choose to study depend on the phenomenon we are trying to study.
For example, if we want to assess the education level of rich people, we will probably have to classify them is several groups - by age, by sex, by how long they have been rich, by how they got rich (old money vs. the nuveau riche), by how rich they are etc.
Education is also a complex phenomenon, as it can be received from numerous institutions, formal and informal, some accredited, some not, etc.
The category "rich" has a lot of variety in it, and we can't say that just anyone who is considered "rich" is a representative member of this group.
As far as I have come to know Buddhists, there very much are hierarchies.
All the studies on religion I have seen so far were operating from an inadequate demographics sample.