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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by mgb]

No but I can say you are replacing my argument with your own specious one in order to save your religion.

Basically, since you can not address the subjects raised, I accept that you can not answer them.
Surrender gracefully.

You see, you did not mention goat-herders, but that is what we are talking about with your "higher rationale," and even your higher rationale is defeated with your Shakespeare and Mozart. They were great, and have left us lasting classical impressions, however, Shakespeare takes second seat to Vin Diesel in the box office, and we can never return.

Just as again, you would not be operated on by 3rd century BCE doctors, no matter how great, not Newtons 'barbers,' or even Civil War doctors, neither should you accept philosophy or your "higher rationale," without modern consideration.

Please do not make me repeat myself, and please stay on topic.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 18 by mgb].

What subjects are you talking about? Be more specific. As for religion relying on only three books, that is not the case. There have been many writings on religion from Plato to Origen to Kahlil Gibran to Simone Weil and there are many modern writers.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by mgb]

We'll just take that as a concession, if you can't, ostentatiously review what we've written: Primitive people's religious accounts should be discounted without good evidence, and/vice how much evidence required for a scientific proof.

The amount of evidence required for proof should be the same, between religion and science - or anything...

[mgb]

[Replying to post 22 by mgb]

Primitive people's religious accounts should be discounted without good evidence, and/vice how much evidence required for a scientific proof.

The amount of evidence required for proof should be the same, between religion and science - or anything...

But not all religious people are primitive (if by 'primitive' you mean stone age people). Some modern people are religious.

As for evidence; evidence, purely as a set of data or objects, does not explain anything (think carefully before answering this). 'Evidence for' does not exist out there in the objective world. Every dust mote, every galaxy, every event is evidence. But evidence for what? 'Evidence for' can only exist in the mind of the person who considers the evidence. 'Evidence for' is a mental construct.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 24 by mgb]

Oh, that's cute. Segueing the subject again. If you can't stay true to a subject, you can't stay true to any God.
If you are unable to read a simple topic and answer appropriately, how can we be expected to believe you understand something a long and complex as the Bible?

And we are still comparing the amount of evidence required to justify, evolution, say, oceans of it, vs tiny unverifiable amounts of religious truth.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 24 by mgb]


And we are still comparing the amount of evidence required to justify, evolution, say, oceans of it, vs tiny unverifiable amounts of religious truth.

I have already answered the OP. Religion and evolution are not set against each other. I believe in the fact of evolution, but I have reservations about the theory of it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 26 by mgb]

No, you did not. You attempted to change the subject. There is a difference.
If I must, then I can say, why are all those wonderful minds persuaded by the unsupported rambling of goat-herders, while things like electrodynamics and gravity remain theories?

I guess you'd have to conclude those with your "higher rationale" are just as dumb as everyone else.

But you will not conclude that will you?

It would be nice to see one religious proponent say: "Hey you're right, I hadn't thought of that."

Unfortunately, there are few things that is true for, that don't undermine the entire religion.
You see, science can be undercut - "The Corpuscular Theory of Light," has vanished in the light of truth.

But religion simply declares truth, false, and carries on it merry way.

[mgb]

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

What are you asking here? Why can't scientific proof dismiss religion? Science and religion are not really set against each other. Many religious people, including myself, believe true science. Why do you think they are incompatible?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 28 by mgb]

Do you expect us to believe you understand the Bible, or any complex philosophy, when you are unable to stay on the track of a simple topic?

Read the OP. Try not to TRY to change the subject again.

[Kenisaw]

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?

Fear of death. I sincerely believe that it all boils down to that. The reasons for creating religions vary (but most commonly deal with controlling the masses), but in the end the one thing that they have in common is some kind of promise of living on after you die on Earth.

These things hang on because humans know they are finite while having no ability to determine what happens post-death. Religion is a coping mechanism, literally a mental crutch, so that the mind doesn't have to think about much less reach rational conclusions about death.

The parental figure often attached to gods is also very explainable in my opinion - we are mammals. We identify very strongly with adult/parental figures because that is what we often learn from and receive protection and safety from. As adults, we don't have that anymore...unless we make one up that also happens to promise life after death.