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?

[Neatras]

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?

The capacity for repetitive testing, external corroboration, predictive ability, and utility in related fields.

I can drop a ball from a building, measure the velocity, and do this so many times with so many objects that I can determine a constant rate of acceleration due to gravity. This is science at its finest. I can even get others to test the rate at which objects fall. Then, I can take my measurements and apply them to systems that consist of more than just small rubber balls. I can predict the rate at which objects fall (provided I know some other variables which scientists have worked out over the years).

This is what knowledge truly is. Awareness of how the universe behaves, and the ability to apply that awareness. All other forms professed by religious apologists are ultimately hollow vagaries that, at best, rely on obfuscation and co-opting of actual scientific enterprises, and at worst, declaring that their form of knowledge-gathering is superior through nothing more than a manipulation of entirely flexible and non-objective minds.

Religious belief will always avoid empirical testing with all their might. If they had any validity, they would welcome testing. But they don't want testing. Not because of some divine mandate, but because they want to be excused from scrutiny while still injecting their beliefs into the social sphere. They want an easy route to subvert all other belief systems without any of the actual responsibilities that good, honest people have when trying to put their ideas out there for others to understand.

It is sickening.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 2 by Neatras]

"The capacity for repetitive testing, external corroboration, predictive ability, and utility in related fields."

Ok so I say the same thing about God. I tell people to seek God, and see if it is true for themselves. I believe God is reliable in predicting, and describing humanity, and the destiny of humanity. It is written out.

"19 We have a prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it"~Peter

God can bare witness on our inner being, revealing his truth.. God can unfold prophecy, and the destiny on man, coming from an external source as well.

For example:
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations"

That was clearly a predictive, and reliable message from God.


This is a predictive religion, that says God has a path for us and our lives...

"10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."


So how is that different then what you said?

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by Tart]

So how is that different then what you said?

It 'avoids' empirical testing.

I get what you are saying here Tart. You are speaking about individual subjective experience, and Neatras is speaking about collective objective experience.

The two cannot be conflated without circular argument manifesting. I suspect the same argument has been circulating for thousands of years already.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 3 by Tart]

So how is that different then what you said?

It 'avoids' empirical testing.

I get what you are saying here Tart. You are speaking about individual subjective experience, and Neatras is speaking about collective objective experience.

The two cannot be conflated without circular argument manifesting. I suspect the same argument has been circulating for thousands of years already.

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...

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.


But Neatras took it one step further, past his personal perceptions, into a more objective and external way of understanding things... Although his perceptions of these things are still ultimately deciding his beliefs, which is no different then "feeling" God.. If we want to talk about beyond our own perceptions, about an objective evidence of reality, I believe God meets those standards of evidence as well...


So, you say God avoids empirical testing... How so? Christ said "Seek and you will find"... How do you make sense out of that?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 3 by Tart]

So how is that different then what you said?

As different as it is possible to be. He described a process whereby empirical measurement and observation, whose results are reproducible by many different people independently, leads to an understanding of the physical world that has predictive capability.

You produced a statement of opinion that the god you believe in has predictive powers, and provided additional statements from a holy book which claim to be prophetic messages that should be preached to the world, then made another statement that god has a plan and so is predicting something for human lives. These statements are not subject to empirical testing or confirmation ... they are simply opinions based on your interpretation of a religion and its god and holy book.

Scientific observation and analysis has no correlation with religious beliefs and the interpretations of the powers and purposes of any gods.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 6 by DrNoGods]


Jesus said "seek and you will find".... If that is true, then anyone who honestly seeks out God, can come to the same results as the others... This is testable in that sense, anyone who honestly seeks will find. You can experience God, and can test if it is true, by seeking God.. That is what Christians believe... How is that different then science? How is this not testable?

"whereby empirical measurement and observation, whose results are reproducible by many different people independently, leads to an understanding of the physical world that has predictive capability."

You can experience God (empirical evidence/observation), you can come to the same conclusions as others who believe in Christ, basically reproducing other independent people conclusions, which leads to a common understanding of God... Whom has predictive/prophetic capabilities of revealing truth...

How is that different?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 7 by Tart]

You can experience God, and can test if it is true, by seeking God.. That is what Christians believe... How is that different then science? How is this not testable?

Tell me how this is testable. How does someone "seek" god? Tell me an experiment I can do, or a measurement I can make, or an observation I can make, that would allow me to experience god. I don't think you can, and that is the difference between religion and science.

If you want to know if gravity works then hold a bowling ball above your foot and drop it. You can easily prove to yourself that gravity is a real thing. Explaining how it works is another matter, but Newton made a stab at it and his equations work remarkably well for many systems (eg. planets orbiting our star, except for some anomalies with Mercury's orbit that Einstein's relativity sorted out). There are countless examples of natural phenomena that science can explain, and these can all be tested and confirmed by anyone capable of doing the experiments or measurements.

Religious beliefs, on the other hand, cannot be confirmed via experiment or tested for validity in any way. They are beliefs without evidence (faith) and utterly different from science in every way.

[DrNoGods]

[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.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 8 by DrNoGods]

No, Faith is not belief without evidence... We have evidence for God. Christianity has the evidence of Jesus as the Christ... Whether you believe it is true or not, doesn't mean this isnt evidence... You definition of Faith isnt the definition of Faith of how Christianity uses the term, and neither is it an accurate definition for belief in Christianity...

Here is how you can test if God is true.. By openly seeking God... You can start reading the scripture (the evidence), determining if the Disciples explanations make sense. You can start praying to God to reveal himself. You can confess Jesus as your savior, with an open heart. They say seeds of faith have miraculous powers, and indeed they do...

It is said that the Holy Spirit can enter into a persons soul, as an inner witness of God. You can research Christ, and Christianity, the fulfillment of prophecy, that certainly convinces tons of people...

I mean, science isnt even testable if you dont seek out answers with an open mind... How is that different the religion?