Religion vs Science - Proof

[Willum]

Why is it that it requires tons and tons of evidence and even practical application to demonstrate a theory in science.
And theories are treated with contempt, as if our world didn't rely on gravity and electricity.

But religion has three books, no back-up and virtually everything is contested, not observed or shown to be false, yet it has such a strong following?

What can explain the idea overwhelming proof can not dismiss anecdotal or idealistic religion?

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 76 by BeHereNow]

How is any knowledge verified?

By testing and retesting. Things that work are retained while things that don't are rejected. What criteria are used to distinguish between the real and the imaginary when dealing with claims involving the supernatural?

How does it totally escape your mind that Science has nothing to say about the supernatural?
Nothing, like zero. Total silence. Maybe you are hearing voices. Other voices.
Help is available.

Raising the issue of the supernatural is a total red herring, has nothing to do with the fact that every person, every day, makes decisions about reality, what to do, or not do, with no testing, no Science.

Science gave us stoves and refrigerators. It does not make decisions for us.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 81 by BeHereNow]

How does it totally escape your mind that Science has nothing to say about the supernatural?

It doesn't escape my mind. It just means that there is no way of establishing that there is anything supernatural. If it cannot be examined then it is as good as non-existent. The wooists like to try and sneak it in the back door by harping on the fact that science cannot address the supernatural. The fact is, nothing can. It remains firmly locked in the realms of the imagination.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 81 by BeHereNow]

Science gave us stoves and refrigerators. It does not make decisions for us.

So what? That is not the role of science.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 81 by BeHereNow]

How does it totally escape your mind that Science has nothing to say about the supernatural?

It doesn't escape my mind. It just means that there is no way of establishing that there is anything supernatural. If it cannot be examined then it is as good as non-existent. The wooists like to try and sneak it in the back door by harping on the fact that science cannot address the supernatural. The fact is, nothing can. It remains firmly locked in the realms of the imagination.

When I was growing up there was an old woman in town that read tea leaves. When some people in town wanted to know certain things they went to her, to have their tea leaves read. She would tell you that it was the tea leaves, not her. The were like road signs, that gave directions even though she did not know where she was.

I was in the military with a guy and his family believed in Santería. When he turned 18 he went to his grandmother and they threw the chicken bones. The bones said he should join the service, and he said that was the best thing he ever did. His grandmother read the bones, but it could have been his aunt, same result, because it was the bones.

My cousin has a PHD in chemical engineering. When he and his wife have an important decision to make they read the Bible and pray about it. They do not go into the lab and do some tests. They pray about it. They have never been disappointed in the outcome.

If you tell me you know more about Science than they do, with a combined 16 years of university education, and twice that many working with it, I will smile on the outside, and laugh on the inside.

They know more about Science than you do, and they pray to God for guidance.
So when you tell me your Science tells you there is no God, I classify that with tea leaves and chicken bones. That is not Science giving you the answer to your question. That is something you decided.

That is what my critical thinking tells me.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 84 by BeHereNow]

They know more about Science than you do, and they pray to God for guidance.
So when you tell me your Science tells you there is no God, I classify that with tea leaves and chicken bones.

On what basis do you make the claim that they know more about science than I do? Is that from some sort of creationist mind-reading skill bestowed by the Holy Spirit? Praying to God for guidance and actually getting guidance are completely different things. Tea leaf reading, casting chicken bones and praying to deities all belong in the rubbish bin of ancient superstitious nonsense.

By the way, science doesn't tell me there is no God. That claim of yours is just more of your straw man construction fetish. I don't know if there is any creator type deity or not. As far as I am concerned, the existence of such a deity has never been demonstrated and I am comfortable in not believing one exists. Based on the nonsense that constitutes the Bible, I am confident in saying that the particular deity it describes most certainly does not exist.

[BeHereNow]

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 50 by BeHereNow]

And that is where we are today. The gold standard of the Scientific Method, is sometimes little more than tarnished brass.

What was the point of that blatant anti-science rant? There are not "dozens" of versions of the scientific method, and certainly not multiple versions in a given discipline. It is very simple:

1) Put forth a hypothesis.

2) Carry out observations and experiments to test the hypothesis.

3) Accept, reject or refine the hypothesis based on the results of #2.

4) Repeat if needed, or elevate the hypothesis to the status of scientific theory.

Science, carried out via the scientific method, has produced the understanding of nature that we have today, as well as the incredible technological achievements that create the modern world. It has proven its validity and usefulness over and over again ... nothing else even comes close.

What?
No peer review?
I would certainly have failed my secondary school science test, with answers like that.

[Bust Nak]

...So when you tell me your Science tells you there is no God...

Who exactly is this "you" who is telling you this?

What?
No peer review?
I would certainly have failed my secondary school science test, with answers like that.

What is peer review, if not acceptence or rejection of a presented hypothesis based on observations and experiments?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 87 by BeHereNow]

What?
No peer review?

That would be part of #3 on the list. But that simplified list was given in response to your claim that there were multiple versions of the scientific method, even within a given discipline, and there aren't. The basic process has always been the same.

They pray about it. They have never been disappointed in the outcome.

Do all gods answer prayers in the same way? What if they had prayed to some other god than the one(s) they worship? How do their outcomes compare with random chance? Or how do they compare with the decision they were leaning towards to begin with? The christian missionary that was killed last week visiting a remote island off of India prayed to the god he believed in to protect him, and guess what ... the islanders don't like unknown visitors and killed him. Was this "god's plan"?

Prayer has never been shown to produce results outside of random chance, which is reasonable as there has never been any evidence to support the existence of the gods that people pray to. There may be gods out there somewhere, but so far they have successfully hidden from every attempt humankind has made to discover them. They appear to exist only in the human mind.

[BeHereNow]

...So when you tell me your Science tells you there is no God...

Who exactly is this "you" who is telling you this?

The poster I was responding to.

What?
No peer review?
I would certainly have failed my secondary school science test, with answers like that.

What is peer review, if not acceptence or rejection of a presented hypothesis based on observations and experiments?

Well, a special kind of experiment, and related observations, but yes, that would describe it.

Are you asking because you do not know, or that you believe I have implied otherwise - because I certainly see no suggestion I implied otherwise.

Peer review, as the term is used in the Scientific community, is more specific than your statement. As others have noted, posters on this board are in the habit of using vernacular meaning for jargon - words that have a special meaning within a discipline. They favor layman meanings, rather than the specialised meaning of professionals.

If you agree with them, well, that does cause a problem.

In the Scientific community peer review is meant to be a duplication of the original work, with identical outcomes.
A completely different experiment, would not be considered peer review. An outcome of completely different results, would not be acceptance.

Peer review is a repeat of the experiment and results.