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 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.

You wish me to speak for my cousin?

[Bust Nak]

The poster I was responding to.

Well I can't see him claim that, and he said he hasn't claimed that. Care to provide me with a direct quote?

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

Well there you go. Peer review is included.

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.

I believe you have implied otherwise: this line is what gave me that impressinon: "What? No peer review?"

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.

Well we choose that language because we are dealing with layman. How is it a probelm when the message is understood?

In the Scientific community peer review is meant to be a duplication of the original work, with identical outcomes.

Ideally, sure, replication can be part of a peer review it's not required.

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.

Close enough, but your implication was that peer review was missing from the presented description of the scientific method is unwarrented.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 91 by BeHereNow]

You wish me to speak for my cousin?

You already did ... in post 84 where you described them praying about decisions and describing that they did not go into a lab and do tests, and that they were never being disappointed with the outcome of their prayer-influenced decisions.

But my question was whether their results would have been the same if they had prayed to another god besides their favorite one, or if there is any evidence to support that prayer actually works based on the results favoring whatever was prayed for, rather than random chance. That doesn't require speaking for your cousin.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 90 by BeHereNow]

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.

Interesting. You complain about people using layman's language rather than professional terms (on a website where many readers may not be professional scientists), then show that you don't understand what peer review is.

In the Scientific community peer review is meant to be a duplication of the original work, with identical outcomes.

That is wrong. Peer review is NOT repeating experiments meant to get the same outcome (that process is done to confirm reproducibility of the original results, and may or may not be done by a peer reviewer). Peer review is the process of sending a scientific paper to other experts in the field so that they can check for any errors in experimental setup, errors in interpretation of the results, errors in mathematics or other aspects of the paper, etc. There is no need for the reviewer to reproduce the experiment themselves as part of the peer review process as you are suggesting.

I served as associate editor for a scientific journal for several years (Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, JQSRT) and my job was to choose reviewers for submitted manuscripts and send the manuscripts to them for review. I rarely reproduced the experiments myself, and neither did the reviewers I sent them to. Their function was to basically "throw darts" at the paper to find errors or inconsistencies, and comment as experts in the field on the results and interpretation. That is what peer review is, and if the paper is formally published then the entire community can then throw their darts at it. This is another form of peer review, and eventually mistakes (if present), are weeded out. The process is usually very effective.

[mgb]

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.

Hypothesis? You are trying to fit ontological matters into a scientific mould. This is scientism. The spiritual answer is not invented. It is a coherent answer and gives a coherent explanation for the world.

Rhetoric at best. The right and wrong way to live are subjective opinions and do not necessarily derive from any religion.

Here Peterson argues that good and evil are not just opinion but states of being-

Please demonstrate that the Tao leads to a truthful vision of the world and how this has been verified.

Many have demonstrated it to themselves.

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.

That is a very simplistic view of religion. Have you read Leibnitz? Origen? Plotinus? Simone Weil? Kahlil Gibran? Keith Ward? C.S.Lewis?...

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?

Logical Positivism is wrong. It has been shown to be wrong. Yet, it is being promoted by people who seem to have a very poor understanding of both history and religion/philosophy.

[EarthScienceguy]

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.

1st I know of no Christian scientist that does not believe in the theory of gravity and Maxwell's equations that govern electric charge. Gravity and electricity can be observed and measured.

Now

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?