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?

[Kenisaw]

[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.

The facts support the theory. If you accept that evolution is a fact, you defacto accept the theory of evolution, which is an explanation of the fact.

[mgb]

The facts support the theory. If you accept that evolution is a fact, you defacto accept the theory of evolution, which is an explanation of the fact.

The theory does not explain the fact. It is a theory about evolution. There are serious holes in it. ToE comes in three parts-


1. The fact of evolution

2. Random mutations

3. Natural Selection

These three parts are not equally evidenced and agreed upon. There are serious questions concerning growth and form and also, Natural Selection, in itself, is not in opposition to design. These last two areas are in contention and the three parts are not, evidentially, completely, supportive of each other. For example, evidence for the fact that species evolve is not the same as evidence for the other two. The other two require different kinds of evidence. You cannot subsume all three under evidence for one.

[Willum]

The facts support the theory. If you accept that evolution is a fact, you defacto accept the theory of evolution, which is an explanation of the fact.

The theory does not explain the fact. It is a theory about evolution. There are serious holes in it. ToE comes in three parts-


1. The fact of evolution

The 1980's called - they want their bad assumption back.
A. Evolution was accepted as a fact by the entire world 2600 years ago. That is how backward religion makes people.
B. In the 1980's part of evolution was accepted as fact, part as theory.
Here's wiki to explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... and_theory
A crayfish has recently been observed to evolve from one species to another. That's a fact, jack.

2. Random mutations

Are just a simple product of imperfect replication, an protein is misplaced here or there from simple entropic principles, it results in a random mutation. If that random mutation is a beneficial one, this becomes ONE means of...

3. Natural Selection

If a random mutation results in a benefit, or simply a trait that becomes prominent is beneficial these genes and traits will be passed on. The ones that don't receive these benefits die out.

Neatras can explain it better, I am sure.

[mgb]

A. Evolution was accepted as a fact by the entire world 2600 years ago.

Where did I say evolution is not a fact?

That is how backward religion makes people.

Many religious people, including myself, accept the fact of evolution.

Fact and theory are not necessarily the same thing.

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 22 by mgb]for a scientific proof.

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

What evidence do you have for the million meals you ever had in your life?

History itself has no evidence. Scientific truth can be evidenced simply because science is all about something repeatable for humans to have unlimited number of times to observations repeatedly to get to a conclusion. Yet not everything is a science.

You are brainwashed by secular education since childhood to think that everything can be evidenced as a science. While in reality those not repeatable can scarcely evidenced, including your own million meals and the million meals of the 7 billion humans on earth!!!!!

Get a clue!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 35 by Hawkins]

Well, yes, the evidence of my "million meals," is being alive.
History is evidence if it is generally agreed to and dosn't make ridiculous claims.

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 36 by Willum]

So what you ate today but a year ago, show your proof. "You are alive" is never a proof of what you ate! It's your dodging of the question instead. I am not surprised that it's all you can do.

History is the recording of human activities, that's why it's comprehendable. Humans are not omniscient. Any claim beyond human comprehension can still be true. Simply "because you don't comprehend such that it can't be true" itself is fallacy. Again, I am not surprised when all you can do is to make use of a fallacy.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 37 by Hawkins]

And I am not surprised at all by the deflection of the subject matter to something specious.
Now if you could address the subject matter, you'd realize that three or anecdotal data points are unworthy of consideration as a serious subject, and abandon religion.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

"religion has three books"

Abrahamism has three books. Religion has countless books, some of which are regarded as divinely inspired, others which are regarded as records of attaining Bodhi or Enlightenment.

"Religion" cannot be contained within the Abrahamic category.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to Hawkins]

What evidence do you have for the million meals you ever had in your life?

History itself has no evidence. Scientific truth can be evidenced simply because science is all about something repeatable for humans to have unlimited number of times to observations repeatedly to get to a conclusion. Yet not everything is a science.

Well this is a ridiculous argument. Given that we know something about human physiology, his being alive does indeed indicate his consumption of meals. Furthermore, you could inspect his home to see the implements he uses to create and consume meals, you could inspect his garbage to see the artifacts of his meal consumption, you could inspect his bank records for purchases of food, you could inspect his waste if you really wanted to, you could inspect photographic artifacts and records of his history, the list is thorough and more than enough to prove his day to day life and consumption of some extrapolated number of meals. If you are implying that every single event needs to be observed to prove a trend, that just seems so pedantic. It is akin to seeing an ant at one end of a branch and later on the same ant at the other end of the branch and stating that since you didn't see every single step you can't say he walked there.