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 70 by DrNoGods]

. Most people would call that "proof" that the heliocentric theory is correct, but it is not a formal proof as in mathematics. That is semantics.

I find it ironic that those who claim a belief system based on evidence, repeatedly refuse to provide substantiation, evidence.

Scientists are not "most people".
"Most people" believe there is a god.

My references, which are not from fundamentalist sources, as your friend claimed, rather from Scientist sources, say there is no proof in Science.
Your rebuttal is that most people - the ones with a belief in god - understand there is proof in Science, including the claim that supernatural things do not exist.
It seems you take most people to be fools, that support your beliefs, and hold contradictory beliefs.

It seems you do not claim to speak as a scientist, but as just another sheeple. I believe I have found our common ground.

[mgb]

What truth?

That the source of this world is non physical spiritual reality. The arguments are complex.

Religion has not provided any truth about human existence.

It has. It has shown that their is a right way and a wrong way to live. The Tao leads to a truthful vision of the world. Greed and selfishness end in despair.

It has invented countless gods and thousands of scenarios for the origins of everything, but no verified truth.

Granted, there are many corruptions in religion. But religion, like science, is evolving. Truths have been verified by those who have been granted truth.

Edited to add: Science deals with analyzing empirical evidence logically and deducing objective facts. It does not take an active role in determining what one should do or how one must act.

But science is used increasingly to promote a materialist agenda.

What exactly do you see as the meaning of scientism and how do you find fault with it?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/educati ... -1.1656080

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 71 by BeHereNow]

I find it ironic that those who claim a belief system based on evidence, repeatedly refuse to provide substantiation, evidence.

You've got to be kidding! The volumes of evidence that science has provided is overwhelming. There are literally millions of published papers, text books, etc. that provide this evidence and substantiation that you seem to believe does not exist. You are squarely in the realm of conspiracy theory now.

It seems you take most people to be fools, that support your beliefs, and hold contradictory beliefs.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. If someone has similar beliefs as I, then they don't hold contradictory beliefs, by definition. But I certainly would not consider anyone that supports my own beliefs to be a fool, nor anyone who holds contradictory beliefs as long as they are based in reality and not on imagination if they are claiming validity of their beliefs.

It seems you do not claim to speak as a scientist, but as just another sheeple.

"Sheeple"? Are these related to wannabes and wannbabes? So anyone who is a main stream scientist and respects the scientific method and the results it has produced over the past centuries is a "sheeple"? Right. Unfortunately (for you), people who believe that sort of thing will never be taken seriously and will be relegated to criticizing science from the sidelines, chasing conspiracy theories, and having virtually no influence on science or how it is practiced in the modern world. You are on the wrong side.

[BeHereNow]

Some of the users here have demonstrated an inability, or reluctance to use hyperlinks.

To make it easier for them:

The modern world runs on science-based technology, and nobody seriously disputes the importance of science.

This importance has tempted many eminent scientists to adopt a dismissive attitude called “scientism� towards other disciplines. Scientism applies science to address questions in areas where science has no competence. But scientism is simply wrong, and might have disastrous consequences for science if allowed to develop. Philosophy has an important role in identifying areas where science has competence, but, by and large, philosophers are not confronting scientism.

Scientism comes in stronger and weaker forms. The robust form claims that science is the only valid way of seeking knowledge. The weaker doesn’t go that far, but it inappropriately applies science to a wide range of questions.

Right on the money, as they say.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 74 by BeHereNow]

The robust form claims that science is the only valid way of seeking knowledge. The weaker doesn’t go that far, but it inappropriately applies science to a wide range of questions.

Here's a question for you. Let's say you use some other way to 'seek knowledge'. Now...how do you validate it, without using science?

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 74 by BeHereNow]

The robust form claims that science is the only valid way of seeking knowledge. The weaker doesn’t go that far, but it inappropriately applies science to a wide range of questions.

Here's a question for you. Let's say you use some other way to 'seek knowledge'. Now...how do you validate it, without using science?

How is any knowledge verified?
On many topics, there is not universal agreement among scientists.
So, in such cases you are left twiddling your thumbs, unable to make any decision.

"I do not know which path to take. Please, someone help me. I am without the brains to think for myself. Woe is me."

News flash. Logic, reasoning, and critical thinking existed long before Science.

[mgb]

critical thinking

Exactly. Scientists are narrow minded and simplistic when they assert that science has a monopoly on critical thinking and rationalism.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 72 by mgb]

(What truth?)

That the source of this world is non physical spiritual reality. The arguments are complex.

This is not an established truth regardless of the complexity of the arguments. It does not even have the status of an hypothesis. The origin of this world is unknown. A non physical spiritual source is nothing more than an invented answer to the question. Invent a being that can do anything and you have invented an answer to all questions but without actually answering anything.

Religion has not provided any truth about human existence.

It has. It has shown that their is a right way and a wrong way to live. The Tao leads to a truthful vision of the world. Greed and selfishness end in despair.

Rhetoric at best. The right and wrong way to live are subjective opinions and do not necessarily derive from any religion. Please demonstrate that the Tao leads to a truthful vision of the world and how this has been verified. Greed and selfishness are irrelevant to this discussion.

It has invented countless gods and thousands of scenarios for the origins of everything, but no verified truth.

Granted, there are many corruptions in religion. But religion, like science, is evolving. Truths have been verified by those who have been granted truth.

It is science that is constantly seeking to improve our knowledge and understanding while correcting its mistakes along the way. Religion is only evolving in its ways of indoctrinating people and drawing them into the fold of believers. It has not substantiated any of its supernatural claims and continues to rely on faith rather than facts. We all know that faith is an unreliable means of determining what is true as it can just as easily lead people to believe what is false. The countless different religions and religious sects testifies to that.

Science deals with analyzing empirical evidence logically and deducing objective facts. It does not take an active role in determining what one should do or how one must act.

But science is used increasingly to promote a materialist agenda.

Is that wrong? What exactly is this materialist agenda and who is using science to promote it? How is it any different from organisations like the Answers in Genesis attempting to use science to promote a creationist agenda?

[brunumb]

[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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 77 by mgb]

Scientists are narrow minded and simplistic when they assert that science has a monopoly on critical thinking and rationalism.

That applies to anyone. Now you have to establish that scientists on the whole have adopted that frame of mind. Or is this just another straw man that is being attacked?

Critical thinking is one thing, establishing that what arises from thought correlates with reality is another thing altogether. What criteria do you use to distinguish between what is merely a product of the imagination and what is real?