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]

Verification can be inner certainty that requires no further proof.

That is a definition of satisfaction not verification.

religious beliefs are not scientific propositions.

Totally agree with that point.

It also seems odd that those rigid standards are only applied to religion here, and not to general philosophy, ethics, politics, or aesthetics.

As best they can some apply the same standard. Some here will say that all metaphysics is meaningless and that ethics is an aesthetic. Politics mostly belonging to sociology.

To those with that standard the metaphysical aspects to Kayky’s claims are meaningless, the claim to verification are in invalid, and the choice to interpret her experiences as God her aesthetic.

I would never say, Goat, that YOU should accept this as evidence of anything.

It is not just a question of whether you’re experiences and interpretations of those experiences are evidence of what you say, the question is the logical disconnect between experience and interpretation of that experience….regardless of how certain you are. There is no problem when the phrasing is “inner certainty� but there are big problem when using phrasing like “verification� and “knowledge�. What you have is certainty in the knowledge that you call your experiences gnosis, and for the present this label is the most comfortable for you. Ok there is a question of the right semantics here, but the semantic you are using as first choice is misleading...which leads to the question how deep the confusion goes.

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.

Yes. But these limitations are not psychological or personal or a question of imposing someone elses comfort zone on you.

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.

Then why so keen to promote this as a platform for verified knowledge?

I know you find my certainty discomfitting. But I will not express doubts that I do not possess.

Are you or are you not certain that you have expereinces and as a consequence knowledge attributed to "spirit/divine/God"? How can you have knowledge of anything that escapes an appropriate term?

[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]

Verification can be inner certainty that requires no further proof.

That is a definition of satisfaction not verification.

The definition of "inner certainty" for verification comes from Merriam Webster, so I suppose your quarrel is with a highly respected dictionary.

To those with that standard the metaphysical aspects to Kayky’s claims are meaningless, the claim to verification are in invalid, and the choice to interpret her experiences as God her aesthetic.

My claims are not meaningless to me. If I express my experience in Christian vocabulary, it is because I am a Christian--that is my aesthetic. But to say that my self-verification is invalid is simply to make a judgment you are not qualified to make.

It is not just a question of whether you’re experiences and interpretations of those experiences are evidence of what you say, the question is the logical disconnect between experience and interpretation of that experience….regardless of how certain you are. There is no problem when the phrasing is “inner certainty� but there are big problem when using phrasing like “verification� and “knowledge�.

The "big problem" is the desire of the person with a "scientific bias" to define what knowing is and to shang-hai these terms (verification, knowledge, certainty) within the confines of the scientific method. There is no logical disconnect between my experience and my interpretation of that experience--only the discomfort on the part of some here with my use of religious language in expressing that interpretation.

What you have is certainty in the knowledge that you call your experiences gnosis, and for the present this label is the most comfortable for you. Ok there is a question of the right semantics here, but the semantic you are using as first choice is misleading...which leads to the question how deep the confusion goes.

Funny, I don't feel confused. I think what I am doing (to the chagrin of some) is reclaiming language that has always had meaning within a religious or metaphysical context. Since I started posting here a couple of months ago, a major theme of my thinking has been the nature of knowing, a subject I obviously feel passionate about. Since the advent of modern science, there has been a growing, almost militaristic, schism between a purely materialistic view of the universe and the human experience of the nonmaterial, often expressed in art and religion. That has been quite necessary because of deeply imbedded superstitious thinking and a desire for political control within religious circles. Now that science has established itself, however, I sense a resurgence of religious thought that transcends the superstitions of the past; and I predict a future which embraces the whole of human experience within the realm of human knowledge.

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.

Yes. But these limitations are not psychological or personal or a question of imposing someone elses comfort zone on you.

I don't think I'm "imposing" any more than anyone else here. I'm simply presenting my ideas for consideration just as you are.

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.

Then why so keen to promote this as a platform for verified knowledge?

I hope that is more clear now. There is always a problem with semantics when discussing complex ideas.

I know you find my certainty discomfitting. But I will not express doubts that I do not possess.

Are you or are you not certain that you have expereinces and as a consequence knowledge attributed to "spirit/divine/God"? How can you have knowledge of anything that escapes an appropriate term?

As a Christian I will couch my expressions in religious language. To Spirit/Divine/God, I might add Ulitimate Reality/Ground of All Being/All That Is. Do you see the difficulty? Even in science terms are created to describe new ideas or to better understand old ones.

[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.