Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion or Science - How do they compare?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 405 of 882 (833614)
05-24-2018 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by jar
05-22-2018 8:20 PM


Re: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
jar writes:
If faith says "Roman Catholics are not Christians."; then she is lying.
Once one's opinions are known it seems pretty common to dispense with prefixes like "I believe" and "I think" and "It is my opinion" and so forth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by jar, posted 05-22-2018 8:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by jar, posted 05-24-2018 11:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 414 of 882 (833625)
05-24-2018 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by ringo
05-23-2018 8:41 PM


Re: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
ringo writes:
Phat writes:
ive never seen evidence that religious people are slower than any other regarding moral actions.
Haven't you heard that there are more religious people in prisons?
This point is worth stressing. This article says that atheists make Up 0.1% of the federal prison population but 3.1% of the general population. The number of atheists in federal prison is about 97% lower than one would expect based on demographics.
The reason for this can be argued. One argument would be that atheists are more moral than non-atheists. A different argument would be that incarceration helps people find religion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by ringo, posted 05-23-2018 8:41 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Tangle, posted 05-24-2018 5:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 419 of 882 (833630)
05-24-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Faith
05-24-2018 4:16 AM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
How's about a little note on the topic of this thread, how religion and science compare? Well, science in its best most reliable form, which has developed only quite recently, is designed to discover truths about the physical world in a way that can be verified by others who follow the same procedures for testing it (which can't be said for the historical sciences but that's another subject),...
Science doesn't really "discover truths about the physical world." It can only uncover what is likely true about the physical world. The part about testing (replicability) is true, while the part characterizing historical sciences as untestable is false.
...while the Bible (not "religion"), God's own revelation to His confused fallen human race, provides us with reliable facts mostly about spiritual things but also a few physical things, that are to be trusted because they come from God.
This is what some people believe.
Both are sources of reliable knowledge if rightly understood and followed.
Considered from a factual, testable standpoint, the Bible contains both true and false information. It also contains a great deal of unverifiable information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 4:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 420 of 882 (833632)
05-24-2018 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Faith
05-24-2018 4:32 AM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
Yes, and if science rightly handles the evidence so that others can verify it, science is a reliable source of important knowledge about the world.
Rephrasing, you're saying that science based upon unverifiable evidence is unreliable (and you should include untestable and/or impossible claims as well). But such attempts at science are rejected by the scientific community. It is because of the requirements of evidence and replicability that science has shown itself to be the best method we have of understanding the natural world.
And if belief is rightly invested in the revelation of the true Creator God, that revelation is a reliable source of important knowledge about the world among many other things.
Some people believe this, but religion lacks requirements for evidence and replicability, so it isn't possible to verify its claims.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 4:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 1:38 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 423 of 882 (833638)
05-24-2018 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Faith
05-24-2018 1:38 PM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
It is because of the requirements of evidence and replicability that science has shown itself to be the best method we have of understanding the natural world.
That's what I said.
So you're accepting my version, which does not include your implication that science has problems "rightly handling the evidence so that others can verify it"?
And if belief is rightly invested in the revelation of the true Creator God, that revelation is a reliable source of important knowledge about the world among many other things.
Some people believe this, but religion lacks requirements for evidence and replicability, so it isn't possible to verify its claims.
The statement as I wrote it is unquestionably true: IF belief is rightly invested in the revelation of the true Creator God, that revelation is a reliable source of important knowledge about the world... You may disagree with the premise's assumption of a true Creator God, but if the premise is true, the conclusion is true.
That premise and conclusion are connected is something you believe, not something you can demonstrate due to the lack of evidence and replicability.
...but the true God is nevertheless a reliable source of knowledge on whatever He reveals if rightly believed and understood.
Again, something you believe but cannot demonstrate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 1:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 2:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 442 of 882 (833674)
05-25-2018 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
05-24-2018 2:31 PM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
You are having a problem with ordinary simple logic.
If the premise is true -- and it doesn't matter if you believe anything in the premise -- if it is true the conclusion is true. It doesn't matter who believes it, IF the premise is true the conclusion is true.
I said that you only believe that your premise and conclusion are connected, that it's not something you can demonstrate due to the lack of evidence and replicability. Just so people aren't confused, here's your original premise from your Message 392:
Faith in Message 392 writes:
And if belief is rightly invested in the revelation of the true Creator God, that revelation is a reliable source of important knowledge about the world among many other things.
So why do you believe premise and conclusion are connected? How does the truth of your premise lead to the conclusion that revelation is reliable, let alone a source of knowledge?
There's also the problem that your premise is ill-defined - what does it mean to rightly invest belief in divine revelation?
The point is that there isn't just the one method of arriving at true knowledge of the world.
If by "true knowledge of the world" you mean likely true understandings of the natural world, then only science has demonstrated this ability, and only tentative understandings.
I simply don't understand why anyone would object to my qualification about rightly handling the evidence so others can verify it.
Because we know you - it isn't as if you just got here yesterday. Your qualification was just a variation of your questioning whether science can be trusted. We all find it completely believable that you would write something like, "Science can't be trusted about radiometric dating because the dates are inconsistent but they won't admit it."
And it isn't the case that science never gets anything wrong as I would expect you to recognize.
Science is a human endeavor that is heir to all our frailties, but it is also the best method we have for overcoming them to reach ever improving understandings of the natural world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 2:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 443 of 882 (833675)
05-25-2018 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Faith
05-24-2018 5:59 PM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Faith writes:
There are lots of people who sit in churches every Sunday who eventually find out they were never saved.
How do they even know there is such a thing as "saved"? Attempting answers to such questions is another way of making clear the difference between science and religion.
It's very common. Scripture says "Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith" and I suggest that's what you need to do.
Little of your participation here are answers to the WWJD question - examine your own adherence to faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 5:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 11:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 444 of 882 (833676)
05-25-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Faith
05-24-2018 6:02 PM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
You don't have to believe my logic, the logic itself stands as written and millions of Christians know it's true and that's enough for now.
"Millions believe" is a religious argument, another way in which religion compares poorly to science as a way of understanding the natural world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 6:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 445 of 882 (833677)
05-25-2018 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Faith
05-24-2018 6:06 PM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
Millions of Christians and at least thousands of Bible experts say it's God's revelation. We all agree and it doesn't matter that others don't. I'm not offering it to you to believe it, I'm just stating that the true God is a source of knowledge. Eventually, I'm sure of it, eventually, it's going to bring down the ToE.
As you demonstrate here, religion can only declare what it believes true of the natural world - it cannot back it up with rationale built around evidence the way science can.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 6:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 446 of 882 (833678)
05-25-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
05-24-2018 6:29 PM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
Oh plug your brain in. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my statement as logic, and it's not only impeccable logic it is understood to be true by millions. T-R-U-E, TRUE, as in "true." As opposed to "false," F-A-L-S-E, FALSE.
It seems you can only declare your logic true, not show that it is true. Why do you think arguments along the lines of, "I am too right," have any merit?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 6:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 448 of 882 (833686)
05-25-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Faith
05-25-2018 11:40 AM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Faith writes:
I only say for purposes of the topic of this thread that there is some revealed information in God's word about the physical world that is to be trusted because it is God's word.
What knowledge of the physical world is sourced to the Bible?
I don't expect many here to accept that it's God's word but for those who do it is a revelation of knowledge about the physical world...
But it isn't knowledge of the physical world. It's just things from the Bible you choose to believe without evidence.
...that should be put above any other means of knowledge and made the inviolable starting point for scientific investigations.
If evidence isn't the foundation for study, then it isn't science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 11:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 12:17 PM Percy has replied
 Message 450 by Phat, posted 05-25-2018 12:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 453 of 882 (833699)
05-25-2018 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Faith
05-25-2018 12:17 PM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Faith writes:
Back in Message 390 where I began the comparison of religion and science as I understood the topic, I made a distinction between the source of knowledge by science and by the Bible, science's being the ability to test and compare observations and scientific propositions to arrive at a reasonable consensus, but the Bible revealing facts because it is God's word. They are different sources of knowledge, but since the Bible just gives a few hints it can only be the foundation of an investigation, and physical evidence then becomes the working information.
Again, this is just something you've chosen to believe, not something you can demonstrate.
It tells us enough to see that the original Created world was very different from the world we live in now, and that there was a worldwide inundation that destroyed that original world, killing all the land creatures and human beings except for the few saved on the ark. There would have been physical consequences we can investigate. It tells us enough to know that the Theory of Evolution is completely wrong.
Same comment.
Since there is no way to apply the testing methods of science to single events in the past,...
This would be false.
You like forensics. A cold-case murder is a single event in the past, right, the type of event you just described. And how many old cold-case murders have been solved, often by DNA? A lot, right? Maybe you heard about the recent identification and capture of the Golden State Killer using DNA and genealogy websites (To Catch a Killer: A Fake Profile on a DNA Site and a Pristine Sample).
So of course science can be used to study "single events in the past."
But as for the sciences that can test their propositions it is the best method there is for acquiring knowledge and the results in technological advance are really quite spectacular.
Technology is just applied science. Scientifically acquired knowledge with no technological application (i.e., images of the craters on Pluto) is still scientific knowledge.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 12:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 1:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 455 of 882 (833701)
05-25-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Phat
05-25-2018 12:24 PM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Phat writes:
  • Is evidence by definition objective or subjective?
Evidence is subjective because it is gathered, examined and analyzed by imperfect human beings. Through replication we increase our confidence in evidence. Naturally for the events of normal day-to-day living evidence is often simple and obvious and requires little or no replication, reexamination or reanalysis (that *is* alcohol on your breath), but in science the circumstances are usually much more complicated and replication is required. With sufficient replication a consensus develops and the knowledge becomes accepted. Tentatively.
  • If the God of the Bible is, in fact, GOD, why did He choose the methodology that He did to introduce Himself and His plan to humanity?
Life becomes so much simpler when even the need for such questions is recognized as unnecessary. There are both good and bad believers and unbelievers, and none of that seems to have any effect on what happens to them in this life. Some believe there are things that happen to them after this life, but that cannot be demonstrated.
  • Assuming all of this, how does it negate the evidence gathered by secular science so far?
I'd like to know the answer to that, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Phat, posted 05-25-2018 12:24 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 458 of 882 (833709)
05-25-2018 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Faith
05-25-2018 1:57 PM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Rather than turning this thread into another geology/evolution discussion, let's examine your underlying principles.
Faith writes:
I've answered the forensics claim many times. It only works for the historical or witnessed past,...
This would be incorrect. Forensics works for the unwitnessed and unhistorical. Why do you think otherwise? My example was of an old cold-case murder - no witnesses, nothing historical, yet forensics works.
...where you actually have information from that past but for the prehistoric past all you have is today's observations, a few ways to compare things in the present that may apply to that distant past, but no way to verify anything from that actual past.
Why do you think evidence from the distant past can't be analyzed, or in your words, that there are "few ways to compare things in the present that may apply to that distant past"?
How do you know where the distant past begins? Or put another way, how distant is too distant and how do you know?
Fear not, I think all this assumption and speculation will soon be tumbling down as there will be proof of the Flood. I feel it in my bones as it were.
Why do you think Flood evidence is imminent now after all these centuries?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 1:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 4:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22676
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 468 of 882 (833759)
05-26-2018 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Faith
05-25-2018 4:12 PM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Faith writes:
Why do you think Flood evidence is imminent now after all these centuries?
Ah, I do have to admit it's mostly wishful thinking,...
You say it's "mostly wishful thinking", but then you say:
...but I think today's evidence by creationists happens to be very good, and in fact I think they've proven the Flood, it's just a matter of getting the material organized effectively and presented effectively. I'm hoping.
This is inconsistent with your other statements. It is expressed with much certainty and not as wishful thinking, and how can you believe creationists have already proven the flood when you also believe the required evidence hasn't materialized yet?
You ignored the other questions. Why do you think forensics only works for the witnessed and historical, which seems in opposition to its true utility in unveiling information about the unwitnessed and unhistorical?
Why do you think evidence from the distant past can't be analyzed?
How do you know where the distant past begins? Or put another way, how distant is too distant and how do you know?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Reword slightly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 4:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Faith, posted 05-26-2018 11:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024