Isn't the exclusivity of Scientific Verification accepted on faith?

[QuestioningMind]

If I grant that premise it wouldn't argue for the exclusivity of science.



That may not be what they think they're claiming, yet when religious people make statements that skeptics ask us to verify with evidence- the eventual details is that they want empirical evidence. That is an appeal to science.

If no other evidence is even admissible, that means they're trusting in science alone.



See my above inference. Words don't always speak the truth, so much as actions.

"That may not be what they think they're claiming, yet when religious people make statements that skeptics ask us to verify with evidence- the eventual details is that they want empirical evidence. That is an appeal to science.

If no other evidence is even admissible, that means they're trusting in science alone."

That's because verifiable evidence - evidence that can be seen by EVERYONE, not just a select few - is what most people require in order to believe that something is real. So they aren't saying that your 'subjective evidence' isn't evidence for YOU, just that if you want them to belive as well you need to provide VERIFIABLE evidence that ANYONE can see. The degree of evidence a person requires to believe something is completely dependent upon the importance of the claim.

For example, if you tell me that you've taught your dog to do backflips, I may very well be willing to believe that you have, based on your word alone. However, if you claim that you've taught your dog to speak in six different languages, I am going to need more evidence than you simply telling me that you've heard your dog speak in six different languages. If you tell me that squirrels forget where they bury 80% of the nuts they hide, I'd be willing to take your word for it. Because if you're wrong, it really doesn't affect me in any way. But if you tell me that there's al all powerful creator God who wants me to worship Him, then you're going to have to provide VERFIABLE evidence for your claim. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

That's because verifiable evidence - evidence that can be seen by EVERYONE, not just a select few - is what most people require in order to believe that something is real.

I already pointed out how this is quite an arbitrary division between scientific data and religious experiences on the part of materialists.

No need to sound defensive because I answered the question of when secularists ever say that only science is admissible? Try ALL the time!

 

[QuestioningMind]

I already pointed out how this is quite an arbitrary division between scientific data and religious experiences on the part of materialists.

No need to sound defensive because I answered the question of when secularists ever say that only science is admissible? Try ALL the time!

No, you haven't. It's not arbitrary in the least. The division is that scientific data can be replicated by ANYONE, while religious experiences cannot. And who exactly are these 'materialists' (does anyone actually call themselves that?) who are demanding replicatable evidence for someone's subjective opinions? Please DO provide an example of this.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Please DO provide an example of this.

This is getting old honestly. This is not an argument. It is not an attempt to answer the OP. Frankly, it is a form of gaslighting.

I know fully well what a materialist is. I also know how to infer when one is a materialist- like I can discern one is an empiricist.

 

[Sapiens]

This is getting old honestly. This is not an argument. It is not an attempt to answer the OP. Frankly, it is a form of gaslighting.

I know fully well what a materialist is. I also know how to infer when one is a materialist- like I can discern one is an empiricist.

But ... you are claiming, "an arbitrary division between scientific data and religious experiences on the part of materialists." I believe that is what is in dispute. If you need to style equilibration of the religious experience to mental dysfunction as "gaslighting" ... I can live with that.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

If you need to style reduction of the religious experience to mental dysfunction as "gaslighting" ... I can live with that.

Actually I was referring to his asking me what a materialist is, and saying no one has ever claimed to be materialist. That comes near an attack on my intelligence.

 

[blü 2]

People practice religion as something like a science experiment from what I see. They are asked to observe the results it produces in their lives and decide on the religion's merits for themselves.

I see that only very rarely. The great majority of religious beliefs I've had the chance to observe personally are held as the result of acculturation / indoctrination when young and uncritical.

Nor have I ever seen a believer test a religious belief in a scientific manner. If this were so, the number of Christians would collapse dramatically as their prayers for the ill were answered in a manner indistinguishable from non-prayer, blowing James 5:14 (among many others) well clear of the water.

I should note an apparent exception: I know believers who've experimented with various techniques of meditation. But these enquiries have no scientific format, since the goal is no more precise than 'Will I like it?' or 'Will it give me better sex?' ─ not essentially different from working your way through the Ben and Jerry board in search of a favorite.

You may know actual exceptions, of course. But if they were at all scientific, some useful proportion of the results would be published in reputable journals of science, as the results of clinical trials are. Does this happen?

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is getting old honestly. This is not an argument. It is not an attempt to answer the OP. Frankly, it is a form of gaslighting.

I know fully well what a materialist is. I also know how to infer when one is a materialist- like I can discern one is an empiricist.

No need to get your panties in a twist. If you can't provide an example of a 'materialist' claiming that ONLY science is admissible when providing evidence for subjective claims, that's fine. But you really shouldn't go around making the claim if you can't provide an example. And I didn't ask you if YOU could discern a 'materialist', I asked if anyone actually calls THEMSELVES a 'materialist'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Faith exists outside of science. Why do scientists keep wanting scientific proof?

Most scientists or atheists do not ask for proof unless theists confront them with their stories.

3. Therefore, scientists, being people, are usually easily duped.

I do not think one can dupe scientists so easily. And if one is duped, others will be there to contest the claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. a scientist might test whether Buddhist practices (e.g. meditation), correlate with better mental health and / or better physical health. (I suspect they do) In other words, you are making a statistical claim and guess what? That's science!

So good practices should comfortably co-exist with science.

It does. Any regular physical exercise would help. Yeah, no problem with good practices co-existing with science.

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information?

There are things that science is trying to understand better. But what other than science can we use for verification? Scriptures?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some scientists claim that there is no other valid means of understanding reality. But they can't tell you the intrinsic nature of reality.

A lot of extraneous interpretations of reality happen with scientists trying to dismiss all other forms of knowledge and thinking, i.e., consciousness is just an illusion, there is no free will, multiverses are real, wormholes, etc.

They speculate beyond their reach all the time. But they should by no means try to invalidate other established means of knowing. Mainly philosophy.

Theories keep on changing. It takes time. Higg's Boson was found 50 years after its prediction. Who knows if the intrinsic nature of reality may be found in this century? Multiverse and wormholes are yet theories only. Consciousness is a temporary phenomenon of the body and free-will is a matter of definition.

Speculation is not not bad word. But then speculation does not claim to be a fact. It is like trying to choose between three roads as to which can take them to their goal easily and faster. There are thousands of views in philosophy. Which one you think should be taken as truth? Philosophy too is speculation. It can be accepted as fact only if evidence exists.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Most scientists or atheists do not ask for proof unless theists confront them with their stories.

A creationist who states the world is 6,000 years old, according to the Bible, would be ignored by scientists?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What are people doing practicing religion then? Spinning our wheels?

People practice religion as something like a science experiment from what I see. They are asked to observe the results it produces in their lives and decide on the religion's merits for themselves.

I see this as no different than what science does. What makes it different?

What makes it different is just this:

Anything that may be tested by science can as easily by tested by anyone else. What you are measuring, when engaged in scientific testing, is independent data -- independent of the tester, which is why it is repeatable.

This is definitively NOT true in "practicing religion." In the first place, there are lots of different ways to "practice religion," and in the second place, the "results it produces" in people's lives is as individual as those people are themselves. No two identical things happen. So in fact, you are NOT deciding on "the religion's merits," but rather on what you are doing. Religion doesn't produce results in people's lives -- people, and how they do what they do -- produce results in their own lives. And unfortunately, sometimes (quite often, actually) those results are thwarted (or enhanced) by blind, stupid chance.

You and I, and 30 million others, could test Newton's laws of motion, or Einstein's Theory of Relatively, or any number of other strong scientific theories, and always come up with the same result. We could vaccinate our children against an array of diseases, and those vaccinations will be statistically wildly better protection for them than leaving it to prayer. We can all pray for a loved one to get better, and sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't -- at exactly the same rate that they would have without any prayer at all (and this has been demonstrated, by the way).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One of the greatest mysteries to me is why so many people, who haven't studied science in any meaningful way, continually talk about what it is and why they don't think it is valid. That's like listening carefully to somebody speaking in a language you've never heard and pretending to know whether they've just told you their grandmother died or they're going to the movies this Saturday.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know I respect your opinion Luis. However, I think it does when someone does indeed approach science that way.

Sorry, but I just don't think that is an actual problem in the real world. I am surprised that you apparently disagree.

Sadly, those that were raised in a worldview and never stepped beyond it are likely to fall into this camp. If we suppose this is most religious people it's probably true, but I do not think it is.

I don't think there is any clear and useful distinction between religious and non-religious people that does not involve strawmen. How do you distinguish between the two groups?

I have a question friend. Do you think atheists and materialists raised by their parents in such a framework can be just as unreflective about materialism throughout their whole life?

To the extent that I understand your question and your worries, it would seem to me that no, that it is perhaps literally impossible for a human being with a functioning mind to be quite that pathologically materialistic.

I was raised by pretty well agnostic atheist parents, so I had the fortune of being encouraged to think. I am wondering about gnostic atheists or hard-nosed anti theists here.

Do such people even exist, though?

I don't think they do.

Did you have a look at the wonderful reply put forth by our friend @Sunstone?

It seems to be a nice reply indeed.

 

[Audie]

A creationist who states the world is 6,000 years old, according to the Bible, would be ignored by scientists?

I would say that in the vast majority of cases, yes,
that would be ignored. The geologists and paleontologists have heard this ten thousand times
over, and find it tiresome in the extreme.

Now, should someone come up with so much as one
(1) good bit of data to support such an idea-and in the
process, blow up the theory of evolution, along with a great deal of physics, chemistry, geology etc, well, that
would be interesting.

Someone preachin' his self-styled infallible readin'
of gospel, who knows nothing of the subject matter in
any of the hard sciences? Not so much.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.

My question is: isn't this a belief?

I think you may not understand the term "science" correctly. Here is a definition:
"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

Science itself is not a verification method. It is simply the knowledge gained through a systematic method (The scientific method)
Science is not evidence, but rather the knowledge that is gained as a result of evidence.

What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?

Again, this argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the term. Science cannot be accepted as valid for verifying information because it is the result of verified information.

On what authority should this be accepted?

The beauty of science is that it does not need to accepted on any authority. It can be independently verified and tested.

Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.

Cool, but again, I am forced to point out that your understanding of the term "science" is fundamentally wrong.

If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?

Science is a sole authority because science establishes it and shows it?

No, science is not an authority, nor does it claim to be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A creationist who states the world is 6,000 years old, according to the Bible, would be ignored by scientists?

Most definitely. What else a person of 21st century will do?

This isn't refusal to learn. It's acknowledgement of the limitations of science. The bare fact of the matter is you expect people to simply accept science as the sole method of procuring evidence or proving things. That is really a view you've taken. Science carries no such admonition within itself.

Science never does that. It experimented with meditation and found it beneficial. It knows that through upbringing God is a psychological need for many people. Even you, though being a Buddhist, cannot abandon the idea. Science does not mind people being theists, unless they get into a debate with them.

Is there a way to remove mind impressions from individual analysis? IE: Phenomenology, gestalt psychology, and the like.

That is very much possible - through meditation, Dhyana, Samadhi, after clearing mind of the monkey thoughts. It would require a previous knowledge (at least, general) of about 29 subjects. That is known as enlightenment, jnana, nirvana, moksha, salvation, deliverance.

 

[atanu]

"..
For example, if you tell me that you've taught your dog to do backflips, I may very well be willing to believe that you have, based on your word alone. However, if you claim that you've taught your dog to speak in six different languages, I am going to need more evidence than you simply telling me that you've heard your dog speak in six different languages. ....

That basically amounts to depending on empirical data. But this approach, although very practical for waking life, may not lead to truth.

First, within a dream, certain happenings may appear very real but vanish sooner or later. Similarly, the solid truth aspect that we ascribe to waking life is actually ephemeral -- takes birth with mind and vanishes with death of ego-mind. Second, if you are a pure empiricist and yet negate something that is not within the scope of the empirical then that is a flaw.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I would say that in the vast majority of cases, yes,
that would be ignored. The geologists and paleontologists have heard this ten thousand times
over, and find it tiresome in the extreme.

Now, should someone come up with so much as one
(1) good bit of data to support such an idea-and in the
process, blow up the theory of evolution, along with a great deal of physics, chemistry, geology etc, well, that
would be interesting.

Someone preachin' his self-styled infallible readin'
of gospel, who knows nothing of the subject matter in
any of the hard sciences? Not so much.

Oh see, you just want to prove something with science that is Scriptural. I thought we agreed that can't be done. It was also said that science would ignore that statement unless it would be imposed on them. Are you a scientist, because you butted right in with your science.