Believe It or Not


Thread starter #1

taykair

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
33
Likes
30
"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
2,846
Likes
1,597
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
33
Likes
30
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
343
Likes
113
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
33
Likes
30
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
343
Likes
113
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.