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?

[Furrowed Brow]

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

This requires some verification. Certainly it is not true of Mirriam Webster online, and it is not true of the two dictionaries I do have in the house or dictionary.com. What does Mirriam Webster in your dictionary say exactly. (Anyone else here got Mirriam Webster to hand.)

My claims are not meaningless to me.

If you mean important I’d agree.

If I express my experience in Christian vocabulary, it is because I am a Christian--that is my aesthetic.

Yes it is. Christians can use words any way they want to. The question is whether some higher profound truth is conveyed… or nothing is conveyed other than the conviction that what they saying is important.

But to say that my self-verification is invalid is simply to make a judgment you are not qualified to make.

Nope. Qualifications are not necessary. It is invalid to conclude from the fact that with a complete sense of inner certainty you think/feel there is gnosis... that there is gnosis. I think/feel with complete certainty p is true therefore p is true is just an invalid form of argument. Maybe I got you wrong. What is the valid logical form of your argument?

The "big problem" is the desire of the person with a "scientific bias" to define what knowing is and to shang-hai these terms

You got that Webster reference yet?

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.

And you don’t feel confused?

[kayky]

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this. I have been out of town.

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

This requires some verification. Certainly it is not true of Mirriam Webster online, and it is not true of the two dictionaries I do have in the house or dictionary.com. What does Mirriam Webster in your dictionary say exactly. (Anyone else here got Mirriam Webster to hand.)

I am using the Collegiate, ninth edition, published in 1983. It has always served me well, and I've never felt the need to replace it. The definition I am using is #3.

But to say that my self-verification is invalid is simply to make a judgment you are not qualified to make.

Nope. Qualifications are not necessary. It is invalid to conclude from the fact that with a complete sense of inner certainty you think/feel there is gnosis... that there is gnosis. I think/feel with complete certainty p is true therefore p is true is just an invalid form of argument. Maybe I got you wrong. What is the valid logical form of your argument?

You have said on other threads on this forum that you are absolutely certain that there is no God. What is the valid, logical form of your argument to support this? I can at least claim a personal experience to support my inner certainty. Your conclusion seems to be based on nothing more than personal bias and intellectual flippancy.

I don't want you to "get me wrong," so allow me to make certain you understand the parameters of my claim. I am NOT claiming that I know there is a God. I am claiming that I know there is a reality not accessible by the five senses, and that I have experienced that reality as one of love and connectedness and mysterious otherness. I know this was not merely a mental projection on my part just as the little boy in the movie Sixth Sense knew his experiences of ghosts were real although he could not verify this to others.

[Furrowed Brow]

The definition I am using is #3.

To clear up who is shanghaing terms it would be helpful if you quoted it.

You have said on other threads on this forum that you are absolutely certain that there is no God.

Yes.

You have said on other threads on this forum that you are absolutely certain that there is no God. What is the valid, logical form of your argument to support this? I can at least claim a personal experience to support my inner certainty. Your conclusion seems to be based on nothing more than personal bias and intellectual flippancy.

The claim is not supported by logic. It is personal bias. At some point reason gives out and irrationality sets it. However the knack is to always keep your arguments valid.

Flippancy? Ah heck. Don’t judge a book by the cover….or maybe you should.

It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.

I am NOT claiming that I know there is a God.

Thank you. That clears up a point.

I am claiming that I know there is a reality not accessible by the five senses, and that I have experienced that reality as one of love and connectedness and mysterious otherness.

We have more than five senses. But point granted.

I know this was not merely a mental projection on my part …

You are certain it is not….and this is the justification for making claims to "knowing" it is not….but personal conviction that your mysterious feelings are rightly labelled as "mysterious otherness" does not amount to verification, or demonstration that you are not projecting; from these experiences and the certainty they induce you cannot validly deduce there is an "otherness" that transcends reality.

Ok I have a personal experience of reality that allows me with complete certainty to say there is nothing else to connect to, there is no "mysterious otherness".

Who is right? How do you know I’m projecting?

[kayky]

If you can claim "complete certainty" about your conviction based on your personal experience of reality, you should have no problem in my claiming the same. What makes your "inner certainty" (that is the exact quote) more valid than mine? Is there no human experience that can be trusted? If not, then we can be certain of nothing--and certainly some have made that claim. Mighty inconvenient, though, if you ask me. At some point, if you are a person with a certain degree of mental discipline, you can trust yourself to say, "this is real," or "this is not real." If not, then we are truly lost.

If I were the only one on the planet claiming such an experience, I could rightly be called a nut. But the evidence is overwhelming that this has always been part of the human experience. At some point I would think the honest thinker would ask, is there something to this? Such an investigation can be conducted with rigor. I know. I've done it.

I've said this to you before, Furrowed Brow; but I think it bears repeating. When you decided that the only valid approach to gaining knowledge was the scientific method, you cut yourself off from a great deal of human experience and from the knowledge that experience brings. That's fine if that works for you. You have chosen to be an atheist, and I have no problem with that. But if you are going to say that you are certain there is no metaphysical reality, you should be challenged just as vigorously as my claim has been challenged. I have admitted my inability to answer the challenges to my claim to a standard as rigorous as that set by scientific inquiry. But this is not a scientific matter, and science is not the end all of everything. Perhaps for some folks the universe would be a much simpler place to live if it were. But, to the contrary, I'm afraid the universe is a very messy business.

[Furrowed Brow]

If you can claim "complete certainty" about your conviction based on your personal experience of reality, you should have no problem in my claiming the same.

Your convictions are not a problem.

What makes your "inner certainty" (that is the exact quote) more valid than mine?

Nothing at all.

Is there no human experience that can be trusted?

Logically no. But lack of logic is not always a reason not to strike an attitude.

If not, then we can be certain of nothing—

Logically….yes.

Mighty inconvenient, though, if you ask me.

Only if you are pushing a concept beyond where the argument can bear its weight.

A some point, if you are a person with a certain degree of mental discipline, you can trust yourself to say, "this is real," or "this is not real." If not, then we are truly lost.

You can trust yourself as much as you trust yourself, but arguments can only be trusted as far as logic allows. Recognize the disconnect and therein you find that bit of you that is you.

If I were the only one on the planet claiming such an experience, I could rightly be called a nut.

You are not being called a nut.

But the evidence is overwhelming that this has always been part of the human experience.

This seems to be so.

At some point I would think the honest thinker would ask, is there something to this?

Yes, and to ask that rigoursly they also have to ask is there nothing in it.

Such an investigation can be conducted with rigor. I know. I've done it.

It would be more rigorous if you regularly asked whether there was nothing in it at all.

I've said this to you before, Furrowed Brow; but I think it bears repeating. When you decided that the only valid approach to gaining knowledge was the scientific method, you cut yourself off from a great deal of human experience and from the knowledge that experience brings.

Still have experiences and accept experiences. Just refuse to swallow arguments that are invalid, and which misuse terms like “verification�.

That's fine if that works for you.

It works for you too.

You have chosen to be an atheist, and I have no problem with that. But if you are going to say that you are certain there is no metaphysical reality, you should be challenged just as vigorously as my claim has been challenged.

All valid arguments put forward as a challenge will be accepted as valid.

I have admitted my inability to answer the challenges to my claim to a standard as rigorous as that set by scientific inquiry. But this is not a scientific matter, and science is not the end all of everything.

Perhaps or perhaps not.

Perhaps for some folks the universe would be a much simpler place to live if it were. But, to the contrary, I'm afraid the universe is a very messy business.

Whether the universe is messy has no bearing on what is not in the universe.

[kayky]

If we cannot trust ourselves, how can we trust our logic?

[Furrowed Brow]

If we cannot trust ourselves, how can we trust our logic?

Did not say you cannot trust yourself. However trusting yourself and trusting logic requires "trust" of a different order.

Logic is a collection of rules for drawing valid deductions. In the same way you can trust 2 + 2 = 4 because the result is decided by the rule of addition you can trust |- (P v P ) -> P. This is a theorem i.e. true on no assumptions. The rules of classic prove it to be a theorem.

Of course someone may count two plus two and get five; they might insits until they are blue in the face that the answer is 5; or someone may invent their own set of rules to get 5. There are many different kinds of logic, each of their own disitnct set of rules i.e. intuitionistic logic, mutli valued logics, modal logics, predicate logic etc, though the rules of classic logic are themselves stable. If someone wants to go outside those rules they have an obligation to clearly state the rules of deduction they are using and justify their use by demonstrating a clear chain of reasoning.

The form of your argument are invalidated by classic logic and also appear to go outside all the rules of the available alternative logics.

[kayky]

And yet what I say is true all the same.

[Furrowed Brow]

And yet what I say is true all the same.

Please verify that.

[kayky]

I already have to my own satisfaction. I refuse to live within the limits you have set for yourself. But if you are happy with your own choices, then I am happy for you.