How is science different then "feeling" God?

[Tart]

How is observational science, being based on how we perceive our universe and how we make sense of those perceptions, any different then someone who believes in God because they "feel" his presence?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 5 by Tart]

Say a teacher tells you about atoms, because lets be honest, if we were not taught about an atom, probably we would know nothing about electrons, or protons, or neutrons, by our own understanding.. So our perceptions of what we are taught play a role in our beliefs too. Perhaps it makes sense to believe in an Atom... But thats not much different then someone teaching us about the fulfillment of the law through Jesus Christ.

If a teacher tells you about atoms, it is because that teacher is relaying information previously learned from scientific inquiry (observations, measurements, etc.). Atoms can be shown to exist in the real, physical world. They can bond with other atoms through the laws of chemistry and physics to make a huge number of molecules, which in turn (and with atoms) form matter, living things, etc. Atoms are not just a philosophical concept, or a "feeling", they can be demonstrated to exist and we now know a great deal about them.

The teacher did not need to discover the atom or to know about them from his/her own understanding, any more than you or I. We can learn about these things from prior understanding, and have the information transferred through generations via teachers, books, etc. Once the information is shown to be valid (via science and the scientific method), then it can be used by anyone as the basis for understanding, or for new discoveries, etc. Religion is not in this category at all. It is not an experimental endeavor ... it is based on faith.

I dont believe that Faith is belief without evdience... You are revealing a closed mind right off the bat... Obviously Christianity has evidence... That teaches us about God, just like a teacher teaches about Atoms... A teacher can also teach us about the fulfillment of the law, and prophecy, through Christ... And it makes sense... If Jesus was the Messiah, then Christianity is true. If Jesus was resurrected, then Christianity is true, and we can be taught its truth...

Not only that, but we can experience God, via Holy Spirit... That is what empirical evidence is...

"empirical (adjective): based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

How would the presence of the Holy Spirit not be empirical? It is based on experience... If it wasnt reproducible, or verifiable, then no one would be Christian...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 11 by Tart]

Not only that, but we can experience God, via Holy Spirit... That is what empirical evidence is...

I think you may be in the wrong section of this website. "Experiencing" god via the holy spirit is not empirical evidence. It is not observable, measurable or testable ... it is something that you may experience in some way, but someone else does not, so it is purely subjective.

This is the Science and Religion section of the website, and you can't support a claim about a religious issue by simply referencing a holy book or your own opinion. You must support it with evidence of some sort (scientific evidence) and you have not done that. All you have done is offer your opinion, and reference bible verses which are not valid to support a claim in this particular section of the website.

If Jesus was the Messiah, then Christianity is true. If Jesus was resurrected, then Christianity is true, and we can be taught its truth...

These are two if/then statements which you offer no support for. I don't believe Jesus was the Messiah or that he was resurrected, and there is no scientific evidence that supports either that I have ever seen. But you can present such evidence if you have it and it can be debated. If all you have are your own opinions, but no scientific evidence to back them up, then that might be suitable for another section of the website which doesn't require scientific evidence to support a claim.

[Neatras]

Religious experiences can be turned on and off with magnets, does Tart really expect me to believe that these experiences qualify as objective, empirical evidence that his favorite myth is true?

[benchwarmer]

There is one very obvious difference between science and religious faith.

If I tell you that dropping a 1kg hammer from a height of 1 meter above your floor will result in it hitting your floor with a speed 4.43 m/s you can actually test it to find out if it's true or I'm making stuff up.

If you tell me that you can experience your God by 'seeking' and I don't find him after 'seeking', then what are you going to say? You can't stand in front of me and 'seek' him out for me and then show him to me.

You (Tart) are conflating subjective opinion with objective fact. No matter how many people try dropping 1kg hammers from a height of 1m (on Earth of course) it will always hit the floor at the same speed. Since not everyone 'finds god' by 'seeking', then clearly 'seeking' is not a useful way to provide objective evidence of this god.

A counter to your 'feeling' god would be me 'feeling' rainbow unicorns and expecting you to believe in them too based on nothing actually testable. So, do you believe in rainbow unicorns now? Why not, are you not actually seeking them out correctly? Apparently you can 'seek and find' whatever you like based on faith.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 14 by benchwarmer]

If you tell me that you can experience your God by 'seeking' and I don't find him after 'seeking', then what are you going to say? You can't stand in front of me and 'seek' him out for me and then show him to me.

You (Tart) are conflating subjective opinion with objective fact. No matter how many people try dropping 1kg hammers from a height of 1m (on Earth of course) it will always hit the floor at the same speed. Since not everyone 'finds god' by 'seeking', then clearly 'seeking' is not a useful way to provide objective evidence of this god.

I agree with Simon Greenleef on the subject... Who was a world renown expert on evidence... Founder of Harvard Law school... He literally "wrote the book" on evidence and its role in Law...

"Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."
~Dr. Greenleef

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Tart]

Well ya, ultimately our personal perceptions dictate all our beliefs, and even so of science... And our science can be bad science too, it can be false... Like Aristotile was wrong about his understanding of gravity (were we get the word from), even Newtons idea of gravity wasn't totally correct.. It was based on their perceptions of the physical world around them...

Yes this is true enough but the reason it wasn't 'false science' as you put it is that it grew out of itself so to speak. It evolved as more evidence was uncovered...we don't have a bunch of scientists who won't budge from what Aristotile, Newton, and other scientists of the past might have said which later was proved wrong by fresher evidence, and I dear say this will continue to be the practice.

Christianity isn't even in the same ball-park in relation to this. Rather than adjust accordingly, they cling to outdated modes of thinking which used to be perceived as truth, and cannot any longer be so in the face of the evidence.

I am a theist myself, and see no reason to change that position because science does not conflict with my position. The way some atheists interpret science (basically saying that GOD is 'dead' as a relevant idea) does not mean that I am clinging to my theism in the face of the evidence, but that the evidence itself (so far) has not been in any way significant enough for me to adopt the same interpretation as those types of atheists.

Or say you are taught about science... Say a teacher tells you about atoms, because lets be honest, if we were not taught about an atom, probably we would know nothing about electrons, or protons, or neutrons, by our own understanding.. So our perceptions of what we are taught play a role in our beliefs too. Perhaps it makes sense to believe in an Atom... But thats not much different then someone teaching us about the fulfillment of the law through Jesus Christ.. Far as im concerned, it makes sense what Christianity teaches. The reasoning given in the Epistles makes sense to believe something like the Resurrection.

Atoms make sense for everyone. This is because they are physical.
You cannot really compare that with the idea of some laws being fulfilled through some one who we are told about through something written under dubious circumstances and conflate the two subjects as being one and the same type of subject.

Even good detective work using scientific reasoning when examining the story can deduce that Jesus may not have even been dead when he was taken off the cross.

The idea of human sacrifice is older than even the Hebrew religion and etched deep within the human psyche in relation to ideas of GODs and their alleged need for such sacrifice.
Rome was doing this very thing at the time, and just because it was lawful to do so doesn't mean that its roots are to be found none other in the pacifying of the GODs.
Thus one explanation for the story of The Resurrection may well be found right there.

You may indeed feel blessed to believe in that which you have never witnessed, but this in itself isn't science and shouldn't be conflated with science.

The stories that you feel blessed to believe in may well be no more or less that Roman story-telling, with more than a smidgen of Jewish creativity thrown in for good measure.

But Neatras took it one step further, past his personal perceptions, into a more objective and external way of understanding things...

Essentially you have made it clear the difference in philosophy and science in the above sentence.

Although his perceptions of these things are still ultimately deciding his beliefs, which is no different then "feeling" God..

Other than the perceptions bit. How we each choose to interpret what is. In that sense, Neatras does not 'feel GOD' because Neatras interprets what science shows him about the physical world, that GOD does not exist, thus there is 'nothing/no one to 'feel'.

So, you say God avoids empirical testing... How so?

In one sense it was a wee play on words. My theology has it that GOD is consciousness, so we know that consciousness can be examined through the scientific method through observing how it reacts to its environment through forms.

However, the data that is gathered through observation can be interpreted without the specification of having to include the notion that consciousness is GOD, and to explain that, one simply has to promote the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain.

That is the secular interpretation.

The interpretation of abrahamic organised religions is that consciousness is separated into various forms none of which are aspects of GOD-consciousness and are thus not only separate from each other, but also from GOD, and in that perception it can be shown that GOD is nowhere to be found in order to be examined through scientific method as it were.
So from the point of the theology you represent, that particular idea of GOD does indeed 'avoid' scientific detection.

If we want to talk about beyond our own perceptions, about an objective evidence of reality,...

Those to things are not the same. 'Beyond our own perceptions' is not the same as 'objective evidence of reality'

I believe God meets those standards of evidence as well...

It is all very well saying what you believe, but conflating that with evidence which can be shown to others is another thing indeed.

[Tart]

See i think Faith in Christianity is measurable. We can judge how Christianity has changed our lives. It gives understanding, and we can witness it having measurable results in repentance from sin, in Faith, in spirit...

I use to be addicted to sexual sin, im not now, and that is directly a result of my Faith... I use to be homeless, now i serve the homeless becuase of what God called me to do.. And it isnt just me doing something, its not me going out of my way to do these things, it is God revealing a path for my life... "as he "prepared it in advance for us to do"...

Ask any Christian how Christianity has changed their life, and measure that..

But that aside... Here is a question id like you to focus on answering...
Do you guys think there is empirical evidence for depression?

[Neatras]

But that aside... Here is a question id like you to focus on answering...
Do you guys think there is empirical evidence for depression?

Absolutely, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of depressive states. And you know what the icing on the cake is? It doesn't rely on supernaturalism. So whatever "gotcha" moment you were hoping to spring is flimsy.

[benchwarmer]

See i think Faith in Christianity is measurable. We can judge how Christianity has changed our lives. It gives understanding, and we can witness it having measurable results in repentance from sin, in Faith, in spirit...

I use to be addicted to sexual sin, im not now, and that is directly a result of my Faith... I use to be homeless, now i serve the homeless becuase of what God called me to do.. And it isnt just me doing something, its not me going out of my way to do these things, it is God revealing a path for my life... "as he "prepared it in advance for us to do"...

Ask any Christian how Christianity has changed their life, and measure that..

But that aside... Here is a question id like you to focus on answering...
Do you guys think there is empirical evidence for depression?

You know what? I'm going to agree with your first sentence to a point.

I used to be a Christian and over time became somewhat depressed/confused over the lack of action from this 'loving god' in my life as well as the obvious contradictions and downright ugly behavior of this character in the 'sacred' book that describes it.

Now I'm no longer a Christian and I feel much better. No need to try and wrangle clearly made up stories that don't fit together well or require leaps of faith (or as I like to call it - wild imagination) in order to keep believing.

So yes, Faith in Christianity is measurable. I feel measurably better now after removing that obstacle from my life. I have less stress, more free time, and in many ways feel more compassionate with my fellow man as I no longer have to view them through the rose colored glasses of a religious tradition.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by Tart]

See i think Faith in Christianity is measurable. We can judge how Christianity has changed our lives. It gives understanding, and we can witness it having measurable results in repentance from sin, in Faith, in spirit...

I don't think you are incorrect in that Tart. But it is only subjectively measurable and subjective experience isn't able to be easily tested through empirical method, and that is what the OP question is asking.

I use to be addicted to sexual sin, im not now, and that is directly a result of my Faith... I use to be homeless, now i serve the homeless becuase of what God called me to do.. And it isnt just me doing something, its not me going out of my way to do these things, it is God revealing a path for my life... "as he "prepared it in advance for us to do"...

That is also fine and dandy but again, misses the mark in relation to empirical evidence.

For example, it can most obviously be said that somewhere in the course of your life you felt a need of some sort to change, and that in order to do so you had to invest in this particular type of belief.

That did the trick for you but others find other ways to accomplish the same things and still others have never experienced such situations so don't feel any requirement to seek the kind of assistance that you yourself needed.

Therefore while this gives you the impression that 'Jesus is the way' it does not equate to empirical evidence that Jesus is - in fact - 'the way' because there are other ways to accomplish the same thing. Jesus even explains that, in the story where there are those who didn't even know him yet did the things he taught people to do.

Thus, your own subjective experience isn't in itself empirical evidence that Jesus is indeed 'the way', nor does it mean that because Jesus is spoken of in the bible, that the bible therefore can be taken as 'The Absolute Truth/The Word of GOD' or that the GOD of the bible is a true representation of GOD etc.

Those things that happened for you may appear to be pointers to that conclusion, but if you care to zoom out from the fixation you will discover other stories from other people who speak about coming from darkness into light (changing negative behaviors into positive ones) and they are not even Christians and do not even follow after the idea of the biblical GOD.

That is a true enough thing Tart, and thus is evidence which goes towards creating a picture which is evidence that not everything the bible or Christianity says, is true.

Ask any Christian how Christianity has changed their life, and measure that..

In relation to what I said above, this won't in itself provide anyone with any indisputable evidence which would tell them "here is the truth."

But that aside... Here is a question id like you to focus on answering...
Do you guys think there is empirical evidence for depression?

Why do you ask? Is this somehow tied in with the OP?