Also, I believe that if you are religious, there can be only two reasons for that: 1) lack of information or knowledge about science, or 2) not seeing the value of facts.
I disagree. But, OK, I can see why you would say that.I agree that the belief i expressed contains an absolute.
However, this is not the same as saying my belief is absolute.
So, are you maintaining that you have the ability to know the all of the reasons why a group of people would do the same one thing?Of course it includes an assumption of my ability to determine their reasons for believing.
Key word being 'assumption'.
Value is a judgement call. There are valid reasons for assigning value. But, value is still a subjective term. What is considered a "fact" contains subjective informations as well. I contend that in order for any human-being to collect data, analyze data, or draw conclusions from information -- including establishing what one considers to be pertient information -- that process will to some degree, involve the use of human perception, instrumentation and judgment. What we call "facts" is practical and useful for purposes of comparision and learning about the world, but I think that it is pretty well recognized that what we call "facts" necessarily includes some degree of subjectivity. So, two people may agree or disagree on the absolute, objective existence of particular "facts" or the meaning or conclusions that may be drawn from those "facts" -- but that does not equate with a necessity that either party does not value facts, in general.Now, you go on to say my reasons are the same as 'ignorance and stupidity'. This is not the case. Ignorance; yes. Stupidity; no. My second reason is not saying people are stupid, just that they do not see the value of facts.
What specific facts are all religious people ignorant of, in denial of, or not recognizing the value of? Or, what are the reasons that they all use that are reasons not based upon facts?You ask me to consider that people have reasons for believing what they believe. I do. Just not reasons that are based on facts.
And you go on to say that my statement is very unscientific. I completely and utterly disagree with you.
I still think that your original statement (the quote at the top of this post) is unscientific, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
This statement I would call scientific. This is not what you originally said.I think i have to phrase my statement a bit more carefully from now on.
if
my experiences [about individuals from a population]
are
giving (accurate) information [about the population as a whole]
then
there are only 2 reasons for being religious.
This is not unscientific.
No. You assert a premise (if one is religious), then draw a conclusion that at least one of two statements must be true -- without presenting evidence. I disagree with that statement, and would like to see you support it. I'm not trying to put you on the spot about an opinion. I just didn't really think you were presenting it like an opinion, but as an assertion of fact.I make two assumptions, and use these to give one explanation.
This is the basis of logic and the scientific process.
I saw that. I was not concluding that you were trying to be obstinate, or anything like that.As you could read in the very last sentence of my first post, i said: "who knows, maybe you guys can prove me wrong".
It is fine for you to assume that your hypothesis is true and to proceed from there. I think we all probably do that. I'm sure I do. I was responding to what you said. In your opening you expressed that you thought everything could be proven scientifically, so I was hoping you would prove what you were saying about other "religious" people -- that came across as insulting them or their intelligence. That's all.Indicating that, based on my experiences so far, i assume my hypothesis to be true. Again; this is what they do in science as well.
Nope. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that your hypothesis is correct.However; you can prove me (my hypothesis) wrong. This means it is falsifiable, which again is scientific. It is proven false, when:
1. A person gives a reasoning for being religious
2. This reasoning does not show a lack of knowledge about science
3. This reasoning does see the value of facts; and is therefore based on them.
I get your point, but you were not talking about tendencies or observations, you were saying there were only two reasons and those reasons were very limited.In fact, this is exactly how science works. You collect data [experiences] from a sample [the people i have spoken to about this subject] to make inferences about the population [religious people as a whole].
Now when they get data that disproves these inferences, you give a new hypothesis, allowing for both the 'old' data, as well as the new data.
Regarding the subject of belief, I suggest you read the following link:
Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am familiar with various approaches to the subject of belief.
The point I am really trying to make here is that, even though there may be some evidence (even if there is a lot of evidence) that some people tend to be a certain way, once you decide that they are all that way, it can easily become a filter that automatically disregards information that might show you other possibilities. Because you do not know every person's reasons, you cannot, with certainty say they cannot be based upon facts.
As you can see, there are valid reasons for me using this definition when i talk about knowledge and religion.
I am not interested in proving you wrong. I just don't see that you have yet proven what you said to be right.And finally; please do prove me wrong then, and show me at least one person that has a reasoning for being religious, that uses facts for this.
One person.