Believe It or Not


Thread starter #1

taykair

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
140
Likes
85
"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

However, according to the religious person's world-view, could not the same be said for a belief in religious matters? That is to say: Is the existence of a religious truth dependent upon our belief in it? Doesn't the theist believe, for example, that God exists whether he believes in God or not?

Of course he does. The theist does not "will" God into existence by believing in God any more than scientific truth is "willed" into existence through the efforts of its adherents. These truths, if they exist at all, are not invented but rather discovered. Could it be possible that both scientific truth and religious truth both exist, and do so despite however we may feel about them?

This is the point in the argument where the scientist says, "No, because there is evidence for science, but not for religion." But what kind of evidence are we talking about?

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
2,950
Likes
1,687
Science doesn't deal in "truth."
Science attempts to explain observable facts though establishing an over-arching scheme for what's going on to cause those facts.

That's what a theory is, in science.

Every scientific theory is destined for the trash bin, eventually, because new data always come along (for example, with the advancement of measuring technology.)

Science is always ready to toss a current theory out in the face of new data that invalidate it.

Religion, since it deals in "truth," has no such relief and must sometimes ignore or deny new data to maintain its own integrity.

Harte
 
Thread starter #3

taykair

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
140
Likes
85
Science doesn't deal in "truth."
Science attempts to explain observable facts though establishing an over-arching scheme for what's going on to cause those facts.

That's what a theory is, in science.

Every scientific theory is destined for the trash bin, eventually, because new data always come along (for example, with the advancement of measuring technology.)

Science is always ready to toss a current theory out in the face of new data that invalidate it.

Religion, since it deals in "truth," has no such relief and must sometimes ignore or deny new data to maintain its own integrity.

Harte
All very true. Which makes it rather vexing when scientists say things like...

"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
750
Likes
227
this argument is pretty old...smacks of obsessive compulsive disorder.
just follow clues reality shows us. that's it. Not complex.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #5

taykair

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
140
Likes
85
this argument is pretty old...smacks of obsessive compulsive disorder.
just follow clues reality shows us. that's it. Not complex.
Can't argue with the fact that my argument is old. For that matter, so am I.

Your diagnosis of my OCD was rather puzzling, though. Not quite sure what you meant by it. If you meant that most of my posts deal with spiritual things rather than exploring the (no doubt) fascinating topic of building machines so that we can go back in time, saddle up a dinosaur, and go for a ride, then I guess that's true.

Following the clues which reality shows us is okay, I guess. Whose reality did you mean?

Finally (and this is off-topic, but I'm interested) I have to wonder why anyone would bother to answer a post only to say, in effect, "This doesn't interest me in the slightest". It seems a waste of time and effort. But, of course, it's your time and your effort.

Then again, I suppose my response to you is a waste also. Oh, well...
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
750
Likes
227
objective reality.
I appreciate the articulate response. Pretty sure you can objectively prove the existence of spirit if you follow the clues the universe leaves people.

The amount of perpetual static discourse that goes nowhere is pretty obsessive. Why people don't ever solve these apparent mysteries and move on is beyond me. I find people don't want to solve them, answers aren't romantic, mystery seems to be more important.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
17
Likes
0
since discorvering stuf that the jew religion discovered decades ago... like 2000 yearts ago....
since only show you what the maker made... they answer on the questin "how" not "who" or what".
there is only theories that made in mathematic logic. that 1+1 is 2? well 1+1 is 11....
for example.
since people mostly atheist are the primitive lvl of mam. cant imagine, cant belive and can even try to understand.
give a atheist some good ACID and probably he will become a beliver... beliver in a maker,, in soul and etc...
maybe
 

Negan

THE member
Premium
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
124
Likes
104
Science doesn't deal in "truth."
Science attempts to explain observable facts though establishing an over-arching scheme for what's going on to cause those facts.
Unfortunately people don't realize this. They think that science deals in absolutes, something it absolutely doesn't. (See what I did there?) Science is always changing, what's science "fact" one day is outdated the next as new data comes in. Science fiction of today is science fact of tomorrow. My point is, is that science is always changing and evolving. As we receive new information, we're forced to rethink and redraw our scientific belief.

There's a saying which goes something like, "All of humanity from the beginning of time know about 0.0000001% of what there's to know about the universe. This includes the lost knowledge of mankind.".
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
2,950
Likes
1,687
All very true. Which makes it rather vexing when scientists say things like...

"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
What science says IS true, as far as it goes.

That is, accepted scientific theories DO explain observed data. And they DO provide methods for calculating outcomes that match the observed data.
When previously unknown or unobserved data arise, then refinements of the prior theory are made that ALSO explain that data, and ALSO provide the means for predicting outcomes that match that data.

Harte