Scientific Method is useless in religion and or philosophy?

[paarsurrey1]

Scientific Method is useless in religion and or philosophy. Isn't it? Please
Regards

[H.sapiens]

Nevertheless, Science and Religion support one another, please.

Not always, paarsurrey. "Doctor, can you bring Lazarus back to life? His body is already decaying." Answer: "No. This cannot be done."

"Jesus, can you bring Lazarus back to life?" Answer: "Yes, by saying a few words. Watch me."


Miracles often run counter to scientific knowledge. Religion ignores science and usually science ignores religion.

Miracles, by definition run counter to scientific knowledge. Religion often denies science, as a matter of faith. Science often falsifies religion as a matter of fact.

[paarsurrey1]

Lazarus was in comma and in near-dead position, with treatment of the physician Jesus and his prayers , Lazarus was cured.
So, neither religion is wrong nor science is wrong, both support one another. Right, please?
Regards

We are re-writing the story. Lazarus was already a stinking corpse, not a man in a comma.

The non-religious reading would be that Jesus was performing some symbolic ceremony on a young man to initiate him and thus "raise him to life" metaphorically. We would still have to ignore what was written regarding the state of decay.

If one believes in God, one has no problem with a literal rising from the dead.

Lazarus was already a stinking corpse

People get confused, unnecessarily with the exaggeration of the account written by John. The Gospels scribes are used to such exaggeration. Lazarus was not "dead" but seriously "sick".
This event was not considered of much significance in Jesus' time, Matthew and Mark didn't even mention it.

It seems a later addition just to give credence to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and that never happened.

It is an attempt to set a past example of Jesus becoming alive after having died on the Cross, and that never happened also, please.
The non-religious reading as mentioned by one is reasonable.
One-True-God does not make literal/physical dead people alive in this world. It is a set pattern of God's deeds/works mentioned categorically:

[39:43] Allah takes away the souls of human beings at the time of their death; and during their sleep of those also that are not yet dead. And then He retains those against which He has decreed death, and sends back the others till an appointed term. In that surely are Signs for a people who reflect.

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

Scientific Method is useless in religion and or philosophy?

And there is not ONE scientific method, every discipline of science could have a different scientific method, the nature of the discipline makes it essential to change it to get going.And there are many hidden conditions to them.
Yet it works and is beneficial, so it should be used, no harm.
Out of its specific realms in other disciplines of human life it gives least to no results. Right, please?
Regards

[Rufus21]

And there is not ONE scientific method, every discipline of science could have a different scientific method, the nature of the discipline makes it essential to change it to get going.

That is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Out of its specific realms in other disciplines of human life it gives least to no results. Right, please?

If you have an example of religion giving valid results where science cannot, please post it here:

viewtopic.php?t=33355

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 64 by Rufus21]

paarsurrey1 :
And there is not ONE scientific method, every discipline of science could have a different scientific method, the nature of the discipline makes it essential to change it to get going.

Rufus21
That is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.
CORRECTION: "The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/mi ... ons.php#c1
Please
Regards

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 65 by paarsurrey1]

MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.

It depends on how far you break down the details. The basic scientific method has the following three steps:

1) A hypothesis is made.

2) Experiment and observation test the hypothesis.

3) The hypothesis is either supported, or is shown to be false.

Each of these steps could be further broken down, but the basic premise of the scientific method is that hypotheses are tested experimentally, and repeatedly, and a conclusion on the validity of the hypothesis is made based on the observations. This is true for any scientific discipline.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 65 by paarsurrey1]

MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.

It depends on how far you break down the details. The basic scientific method has the following three steps:

1) A hypothesis is made.

2) Experiment and observation test the hypothesis.

3) The hypothesis is either supported, or is shown to be false.

Each of these steps could be further broken down, but the basic premise of the scientific method is that hypotheses are tested experimentally, and repeatedly, and a conclusion on the validity of the hypothesis is made based on the observations. This is true for any scientific discipline.

Any sensible and reasonable changes could be made in it, it is a human tool must be used sensibly. Does any normal person use a hammer to pull a nail from the door? Surely not.
It miserably fails in the Religion, and it must fail, it is only designed to be used in sciences related to it. Right, please?
Regards

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 67 by paarsurrey1]

It miserably fails in the Religion, and it must fail, it is only designed to be used in sciences related to it. Right, please?

Of course it would fail with religion because the "Religious Method" is to blindly believe fantastic stories and tales which have no basis in reality, and no physical evidence to support their premises and conclusions. Unlike the physical sciences where there is one basic Scientific Method that has proven very effective over time, there are many different Religious Methods, although they all seem to involve blind belief in things that are simply made up out of thin air, with no basis in reality.

[benchwarmer]

Does any normal person use a hammer to pull a nail from the door? Surely not.

I don't know what hammers look like where you live, but I've used mine many times to pull nails out of things. That's what the end with the V notch is for.

If your point is that science is the wrong tool to use to verify religious claims I disagree.

Many religions proclaim 'truths' that are falsifiable via the scientific method. For example, some early religious claims would be that all life forms are different and 'made perfectly each in it's own way' by some god creature. Yet science has shown all living things on this planet are related. In fact multiple branches of science have shown this. So, one religious claim debunked.

Global flood? Debunked.

Young earth (~6000 years old)? Debunked

There are more, I'm sure you get the idea.

[paarsurrey1]

Does any normal person use a hammer to pull a nail from the door? Surely not.

I don't know what hammers look like where you live, but I've used mine many times to pull nails out of things. That's what the end with the V notch is for.

If your point is that science is the wrong tool to use to verify religious claims I disagree.

Many religions proclaim 'truths' that are falsifiable via the scientific method. For example, some early religious claims would be that all life forms are different and 'made perfectly each in it's own way' by some god creature. Yet science has shown all living things on this planet are related. In fact multiple branches of science have shown this. So, one religious claim debunked.

Global flood? Debunked.

Young earth (~6000 years old)? Debunked

There are more, I'm sure you get the idea.

The core issues of the the truthful religion are:

Articles of Faith

Unity of God
His Angels
His Books
His Prophets
The Last Day
Divine Decree

Five Pillars of Islam

Kalima
Prayer
Fasting
Zakaat
Hajj

https://www.alislam.org/

Science never took them officially to investigate.
It is none of its business. Right, please?

Regards