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?

[kayky]

If this were true, then no human knowledge could be trusted—

It will be only as good as it can be verified.

Gnosis is verification.

Evidently, then, there is a large number of people experiencing the world very differently from the way you are experiencing it since atheists are a definite minority.

Round earthers use to be in a minority too. But just like flat and round earthers the suspicion is that we all share very similar experiences. There are not on the whole different kinds of humans beings with different capacities for experiencing the world. The difference between theist and atheist are the words and concepts they prefer to describe their experiences. All atheists do is see the world whilst carrying less in their language baggage. Theists carry more words in their language baggage. Words like spirit, divine etc. But there is no reason to accept the theist baggage is any heavier than the atheist's.

I'm not sure I get the baggage analogy. But I do believe that we all have the capacity for spiritual knowledge.

My guess is that at some point in your life you made a choice to accept only scientifically verifiable evidence as your source of understanding.

It was probably the point when realizing there is no meaningful alternative. It is more basic a problem than a question of knowledge. It is to do with what makes our words and concepts meaningful.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

The moment you made that choice, you cut yourself off from the kind of knowing I am speaking of.

Certainly the kind of knowing of which you speak is meaningless too me.

I have no problem with that.

You cannot find what you do not seek.

Are you sure you’ve thoroughly questioned your concept of knowing to find out if it is really meaningful?

Yes. Very thorough.

Who is really cut off? One of us is a flat earther. It might be me.

I doubt if it is either one of us. I have a great deal of respect for science.

But everying thing I claim to know can be verified and falsified.

If that is where your comfort level is, so be it.

Gnosis has nothing to do with personal preference.

Can you verify that?

Only to myself.

Can you even demonstrate this claim is halfway plausible?

No.

The claims of insight into the divine are claims. Without verification, predictions, falsification what you have is an interpretative framework that levitates those claims by pulling on its shoe laces; which only leaves the personal experience to support them.

I would say that the claim "levitates" with the wings of a transformed life.

Got personal experience a plenty. Sometimes even pull on own shoelaces. But when do also sure do not "know".

I am not unsure at all.

When levitating over the heads of those of others without gnosis, you sure we ain’t having the same kind of experiences as you but just limit ourselves to more meaningful descriptions.

Hello down there! I think it is something that must be actively sought.

[McCulloch]

The problem, Angel, is that Truth does not always lend itself to scientific validation, but that does not mean that it cannot be known. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, we can never really know anything. I think that places an unreasonable burden on human knowledge.

But religion is where people claim a sure and certain hope in the absence of verifiable knowledge. I would have less problem if they were more open to admitting that they are just guessing. But they keep insisting that they know that there is an afterlife and that they know what to do to make the afterlife better.

[kayky]

The problem, Angel, is that Truth does not always lend itself to scientific validation, but that does not mean that it cannot be known. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, we can never really know anything. I think that places an unreasonable burden on human knowledge.

But religion is where people claim a sure and certain hope in the absence of verifiable knowledge. I would have less problem if they were more open to admitting that they are just guessing. But they keep insisting that they know that there is an afterlife and that they know what to do to make the afterlife better.

I do not know if there is an afterlife or not. My religious practice is all about this life--not some future unknown.

[Goat]

If this were true, then no human knowledge could be trusted—

It will be only as good as it can be verified.

Gnosis is verification.

Is it?? Or is it self justification? It certainly is not objective, since you can't show other.

[kayky]

Gnosis is verification.

Is it?? Or is it self justification? It certainly is not objective, since you can't show other.

It is knowledge that is verified to the person who receives it.

[Goat]

Gnosis is verification.

Is it?? Or is it self justification? It certainly is not objective, since you can't show other.

It is knowledge that is verified to the person who receives it.

How is that any different from self justification? Can you demonstrate this 'knowledge' to another without making unsupported claims?

[kayky]

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.

[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.

[Goat]

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'

[kayky]

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'

You are free to make this assessment of my experience, of course. You set up a standard to judge all things even though this standard does not apply to all things.