Jr, Sci,
Some great points and quite enjoyable
James
A Christian might well claim that he has evidence. He has a personal relationship with God. He has the bible. He has the word of millions of other believers. All that is evidence. It is just not the kind of evidence that science accepts as valid, and it is that fact which puts religion in a different arena from science.
Yes I agree, and these are among the essential arguments in epistemology; what is it that represents evidence?
For both sides of the debate to reach any kind of consensus then both need to agree on common rules. The religion vs science debate is quite different from say two scientists debating opposing views of a given theory; eventually they should reach agreement because they share the same rules for evidence. Religion and science will never be able to agree. As I stated elsewhere in another topic, it is much like the two sides are playing different games, say basketball and baseball, but both think there is only one game in play.
Even you admit here that the kinds of evidence are different. Is it two arenas or are they opposites? We could debate definitions for a long time, but I think we agree; they are very different. What constitutes an arena? What constitutes an opposite? It is good enough to recognize that there is a difference.
There is another important issue that distracts many from seeing the religious issue clearly. The scientific method is relatively very new, and for most of human history it has been the priests that have offered the final rulings and wisdom. That legacy for final truth is still with us and manifests itself in a majority view. Your statement, for example, that millions of others believe the same thing, is considered evidence: Is typical of seeing religious beliefs as a valid method for establishing knowledge. The basis for these beliefs stem from past ignorance (when modern science did not exist) and widespread superstitions (fear of the unknown), which have been propagated for millennia. For example not so long ago almost everyone on the planet believed the world was flat. This wasn’t evidence just an irrational (lack of evidence) belief. The majority can be wrong and truth isn’t determined by a popular vote. The issues are further exacerbated by so many people who so desperately ‘want’ to believe and that necessarily affects their choice between a religion and cold hard scientific facts.
Having considered the issues for several decades I have become convinced of what I consider valid evidence. I am sure religionists would claim the same for their case. From my perspective this means that science is incompatible with religion, since their objectives are based on ‘different’ ground rules.
I agree the methodologies are different. But in many cases the quality of knowledge sought is also different. Science mainly asks "how" questions about the world. Religion is a philosophical discipline which seeks to address the "why" questions which science cannot.
That’s a nice distinction but I believe it is not true.
The purpose of science is not just about ‘how’ but is concerned with the establishment of knowledge. And answering the question of ‘why’ is just as valid a piece of knowledge as is knowing ‘how’.
Taken from another thread that Q started: The definition of science is, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Just the terms, ‘identification’ and ‘explanation’, indicate a need to answer ‘why’ as well as ‘how’. I agree that science is usually very good at answering ‘how’, but the question of ‘why’ is still an objective, and in many cases there simply isn’t enough evidence to answer ‘why’. We need patience and a need to continue searching. But religion cannot wait; it has already decided that it knows ‘why’. My perspective is that it cannot know ‘why’ because the evidence isn’t in yet, and of course that brings us back to what is meant by evidence.
The distinction is more like religion is only concerned about ‘why’ and has little interest in ‘how’, and science is concerned with both ‘why’ and ‘how’ and has established precise disciplines to achieve both objectives. Religion has no such methodologies. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions as to which approach is most likely to result in real truth and knowledge.
And really science is very good at answering many ‘whys’. Consider the periodic table and the question of ‘why do some atoms behave differently from others’. The determination of ‘how’ extends to answering the questions of ‘why’. In the same way that at one time we didn’t have a periodic table we could neither answer how or why. The ultimate question of why does life exist or how do big bangs form, are simply unanswerable at this time, science needs to do more work. Jumping to conclusions that a supernatural being did it is ……… I’ll let you fill in the blanks.
<i>Religious faith specifically does not require any evidence before one believes the claims.</i>
It does not require it, but I think you'll find that most intelligent believers consider they have evidence which bolsters their faith.
Yes I agree and this is an essential part of the religion vs science debate and the epistemology argument. Just what is evidence and is it suitable for the determination of truth.
<i>Anyone, regardless of intelligence, who chooses to believe something that cannot be shown to be true, is technically irrational.</i>
That's an interesting statement. Let's say I had Corn Flakes for breakfast last Tuesday. Nobody can prove that my statement is true, yet they might well believe me. Importantly, <i>I</i> believe my statement is true even though I cannot now prove it to anyone. Is it irrational for me to believe I ate Corn Flakes last Tuesday? Is it irrational for somebody to take my word for it?
Now I think you know better than that. I’m sure you realize that most of science is based on inductive reasoning (e.g. statistical probability). I’m sure you are also aware that there is no such thing as an absolute proof, since to have such a thing one must have total knowledge of the whole universe.
Many people might well choose to believe your statement is true if they have past evidence that the things you claim have turned out to be true. Simple statistics indicates that believing you this time is a good bet. Most of science operates this way. The evidence is your past record. This is inductive logic.
If I had no such evidence of your past record then I would withhold belief. I simply would not be able to reach a conclusion either way. What would be irrational is if I claimed with absolute certainty that you did in fact have corn flakes that day. I might be right or wrong. The point is that I would be making a claim for ‘knowledge’ and without evidence that claim is untrue, i.e. I wouldn’t KNOW. There is famous saying about this, something like ‘claiming something is true without knowing is just as deceitful as lying’.
Religionists use the same technique. They claim they KNOW, but they cannot know, since the evidence is inadequate or totally missing. They may indeed be correct, but they are not exercising skepticism or maintaining a healthy hypothesis, they are claiming certainty. That I maintain is irrational.
<i>For example if I was to state as true that an invisible, immaterial green elephant created the universe, but did not provide any evidence, would you say my belief is rational or irrational?</i>
If you provided no evidence of any kind, I would be sceptical of your claim, but I could not dismiss it completely. With more detail, I might find that your story clashes with known facts about the universe, but given your statement alone it is too soon to judge. My gut feeling is that your statement is probably false, for all kinds of reasons, but it is conceivable that I could be wrong.
Superb. This is the very basis for atheism. The disbelief of a claim is not the same as saying it is false. I think you now have a very accurate idea of my position.
<i>The same applies to all religions that claim an invisible and immaterial entity created the universe. There is no essential qualitative difference between the two claims.</i>
I agree, but in the case of established religions we have more information available about the workings of the purported God(s).
And here is where I spend much of my time. The claimed working of alleged gods I suspect are all based on earlier mythologies and there is considerable effort to support those views. And that is the subject of yet more religious topics.
Take care
Cris
