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?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

That's an interesting question.

Religions are poorly substantiated, are scientifically dead in the water, yet have a great deal of support. Why?

The answer seems clear to me: Religious followers aren't interested in scientific merits of religion, and so pursue it more for emotional reasons. It can be popular without being true because human beings are poor at, and are often not motivated by truth.

[mgb]

Part of the answer is that scientific proof and scientific knowledge is primitive. Science is concerned with how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through systems, how biological systems work etc. Matter is primitive and the study of it is a primitive occupation (no disrespect meant here). Consequently the philosophical rationale that emerges from it can be primitive. It cannot encompass the more evolved aspects of reality.


These are life, being, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, value, morality, the personal, etc. These things require a higher rationale.

Science may have objective proofs of things but there are proofs about relatively primitive aspects of the world.

[Neatras]

Part of the answer is that scientific proof and scientific knowledge is primitive. Science is concerned with how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through systems, how biological systems work etc. Matter is primitive and the study of it is a primitive occupation (no disrespect meant here). Consequently the philosophical rationale that emerges from it can be primitive. It cannot encompass the more evolved aspects of reality.


These are life, being, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, value, morality, the personal, etc. These things require a higher rationale.

Would you then claim that spiritualists and woo peddlers have "higher rationale" than scientists who invest their livelihoods into making all the items and gadgets you take for granted in order to be posting on this forum?

[mgb]

Part of the answer is that scientific proof and scientific knowledge is primitive. Science is concerned with how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through systems, how biological systems work etc. Matter is primitive and the study of it is a primitive occupation (no disrespect meant here). Consequently the philosophical rationale that emerges from it can be primitive. It cannot encompass the more evolved aspects of reality.


These are life, being, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, value, morality, the personal, etc. These things require a higher rationale.

Would you then claim that spiritualists and woo peddlers have "higher rationale" than scientists who invest their livelihoods into making all the items and gadgets you take for granted in order to be posting on this forum?

If you're going to characterize spiritual matters as 'woo' and 'spiritualism' (do a google search for that word) you are not in a position to have a meaningful discussion with me.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 5 by mgb]

Educate me, then. Show me what occupations or beliefs demonstrate "higher rationale" than what scientists have. You may take issue with my terminology, but that's coming from my experience with others in the past who use spirituality as a catch-all term so they can sell snake oil. Now are you going to debate, or not?

[mgb]

[Replying to post 5 by mgb]

Educate me, then. Show me what occupations or beliefs demonstrate "higher rationale" than what scientists have. You may take issue with my terminology, but that's coming from my experience with others in the past who use spirituality as a catch-all term so they can sell snake oil. Now are you going to debate, or not?

Snake oil? Try to have more substance and less inflated rhetoric. What I'm saying is that a primitive rationale, derived from primitive matter, cannot address subjects like art, literature, spiritual matters, etc. etc. These cannot be know by the reductive rationale of science. I'm not putting scientists or science down, I'm just saying that they are misguided if they think science can address philosophical or metaphysical questions. It is like saying literature can be reduced to the primitive logic of chess. Scientism says everything can be explained by science. I don't think so.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 7 by mgb]

Accuses me of using inflated rhetoric, goes on to use the term "scientism." This is definitely a misfire of a conversation on my part, and I appreciate getting this out of the way. While it may not reflect well on the spirit of debate, I'll back out of the discussion with you here, mgb. Have a pleasant day.

[TSGracchus]

Psychologists and sociologists have verified what Karl Marx observed about religion: It is the "misery index" of a society. The more corrupt, ignorant, and unequal the society, the more religious it is.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by mgb]

You are postulating that undeveloped peoples can adhere and understand this "higher rationale."

This is so contrary to everything we have observed in history and experience, I would like to see your evidence or rationale.

I mean, when I was a child I thought I understood God. As an adult I understand this "comprehension," was only a childish simplification. As much as my immature brain could handle.

You have made an extraordinary claim, what is your remarkable justification?