Truth vs. Science and Religion

[Agnostic Angel]

The dichotomy made by some people between science and religion has typically been that science leads to knowledge and religion leads to ignorance. I've been pondering about this because I believe the only way to really know if what you know is right or not is to know something on the scale of truth. However, if neither science nor religion lead to truth, then I believe that the focus has been misleadingly shifted from pursuing truth to arguing over which side is smarter or has more sophistication when none of these necessarily lead to *proving* the truth (or a correct picture of reality). Perhaps overall, both science and religion are pursuing the same thing but in a different way while also falling into distractions of fighting over who's better than who.


To reiterate for debate purposes, I don't intend to debate science vs. religion but rather Truth vs. science and religion. The 4 questions below can serve as specifics on what to debate on for this issue.


Is the dichotomy between science and religion truly based on knowledge and ignorance? In other words, does the use of science always lead to knowledge and the use of religion always to ignorance?


In addition to my previous questions, are the back-and-forth arguments between some religionists and scientists vain? Doesn't both science and religion lack proof or justification to support that their claims are right and won't mislead?

[cnorman18]

How is that any different from self justification?

To justify requires proof or demonstration. Verification can be inner certainty that requires no further proof.

Can you demonstrate this 'knowledge' to another without making unsupported claims?

I'd like to think that people who know me do see "evidence" of this knowledge in the way I live my life and interact with others. But that won't work here. That's the inherent problem in a debate about religious experience: the claim itself is derived from personal experience. I don't ask anyone here to simply accept this at face value. But, as I have said before, it is the one claim I will never withdraw.

Kayky's point is well taken. Religion is not science, and religious beliefs are not scientific propositions.

I have never quite understood either the reasoning or the motivation of those who claim that they should be.

It also seems odd that those rigid standards are only applied to religion here, and not to general philosophy, ethics, politics, or aesthetics. Why are philosophical, aesthetic, etc. opinions acceptable as opinions, while religious opinions must be "proven"?

From those who insist that their religious opinions are universally to be accepted as literally factual, certainly; but not all religious folk, e.g., Kayky and me, do that.

I have never claimed to be able to prove anything. I can't prove that chocolate tastes better than celery, either, but I think I should be allowed to say that I think that that is true without two paragraphs of disclaimers.

It might give someone justification and opinion, but it is not 'knowledge', nor is it 'verified'.

Belief is not knowledge, and belief is not 'verified'

That's pretty much what I said; and since Kayky said that her contentions can only be verified to herself, I would guess that she was saying much the same thing.
As I have said before, one has a perfect right to insist on strictly objective and materialistic proof and/or verification of anything one believes oneself; but one does not have a right to insist that others must think in that same way.

Further, it ought to be acknowledged that using that strictly objective and materialistic standard is a subjective choice itself, and cannot be proven to be the only correct one by its own standards.

[Goat]

That's pretty much what I said; and since Kayky said that her contentions can only be verified to herself, I would guess that she was saying much the same thing.
As I have said before, one has a perfect right to insist on strictly objective and materialistic proof and/or verification of anything one believes oneself; but one does not have a right to insist that others must think in that same way.

Further, it ought to be acknowledged that using that strictly objective and materialistic standard is a subjective choice itself, and cannot be proven to be the only correct one by its own standards.

I just object to the semantics I guess.I do not like the term '
verified' for subjective beliefs and experiences (including my own)

[cnorman18]

That's pretty much what I said; and since Kayky said that her contentions can only be verified to herself, I would guess that she was saying much the same thing.
As I have said before, one has a perfect right to insist on strictly objective and materialistic proof and/or verification of anything one believes oneself; but one does not have a right to insist that others must think in that same way.

Further, it ought to be acknowledged that using that strictly objective and materialistic standard is a subjective choice itself, and cannot be proven to be the only correct one by its own standards.

I just object to the semantics I guess.
I do not like the term 'verified' for subjective beliefs and experiences (including my own)

I agree that that wouldn't be the term of my choice, and its use in this context probably would require a paragraph or two of disclaimers.

[kayky]

Verified means "inner certainty." I can think of no better term to describe what I am talking about. I do not offer it as evidence of anything other than what I have found to be true within my own experience.

I would never say, Goat, that YOU should accept this as evidence of anything. It seems to me that you want me to place the same limits upon my own quest for knowledge that you have placed upon yourself. For me that would be a halfway approach. I know you find my certainty discomfitting. But I will not express doubts that I do not possess. The evidence I have is meaningful only to me. In the context of the rules of debate, it is a meaningless claim. I fully admit this and always have. But it is what it is.

[kayky]

I just wanted to add, Goat, that on numerous occasions I have made the comment that I'm not sure "God" is the correct label for my experiences. I can just think of no appropriate term to replace it. Perhaps that will make you feel a little better about my obstinance.

[cnorman18]

Verified means "inner certainty." I can think of no better term to describe what I am talking about. I do not offer it as evidence of anything other than what I have found to be true within my own experience.

I would never say, Goat, that YOU should accept this as evidence of anything. It seems to me that you want me to place the same limits upon my own quest for knowledge that you have placed upon yourself. For me that would be a halfway approach. I know you find my certainty discomfitting. But I will not express doubts that I do not possess. The evidence I have is meaningful only to me. In the context of the rules of debate, it is a meaningless claim. I fully admit this and always have. But it is what it is.

And there are your paragraphs of disclaimers. Seems clear enough to me. Kayky's position seems to be the same as my own: I claim nothing but my own experiences and perceptions, and recognize that those are not transferable to others. I claim no absolute and provable certainty - but I have no particular doubts, either.

[Furrowed Brow]

[McCulloch]

And there are your paragraphs of disclaimers. Seems clear enough to me. Kayky's position seems to be the same as my own: I claim nothing but my own experiences and perceptions, and recognize that those are not transferable to others. I claim no absolute and provable certainty - but I have no particular doubts, either.

But there is a difference. Kayky calls something validated by her inner certainty knowledge, while cnorman does not.

[kayky]

[cnorman18]

And there are your paragraphs of disclaimers. Seems clear enough to me. Kayky's position seems to be the same as my own: I claim nothing but my own experiences and perceptions, and recognize that those are not transferable to others. I claim no absolute and provable certainty - but I have no particular doubts, either.

But there is a difference. Kayky calls something validated by her inner certainty knowledge, while cnorman does not.

Enh, point taken. I've always made a distinction between belief and knowledge, and I don't think that it's either wise or productive to blur that distinction. It's not a subtle or fine one.