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

[sandy whitelinger]

My dream world? Now that's a dream.

Surely not the Disney version?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you don't understand what 'faith' is.

"Faith" is the willingness to act as if what you believe to be true IS true.
"Faith" is exactly equal to 'trust.' Look it up.

If you believe in something, and act on that belief, you have faith. It doesn't matter what the belief is, or what evidence supports it. "Faith" isn't about what anybody ELSE thinks about the validity of something. It's what YOU think it is.

My sister has a phobia about bridges. She won't cross them. Period. She would rather use a more dangerous ferry, go miles out of her way, or simply not go--wherever--than cross one. Her husband is a metal fatigue expert; a scientist in the stresses of wind and other elements on metal structures. He can give her more evidence that a bridge is safe than any of the rest of us can access.....and she'll even believe him.

But she won't cross the bridge because she has no faith.

Religious faith isn't any different from any other sort of faith, except that non-believers make fun of it. (shrug) They could even be correct about how little evidence there is for the beliefs involved. It DOES NOT MATTER. Faith is about what the believer does, NOT what you think he should do.

So many errors, mainly more equivocation errors. First off the phrase was "well earned trust" not just trust. People who have a faith based belief cannot seem to demonstrate that their faith is a well earned trust. Since you failed at the start the rest really does not matter.

People have been asking the OP and like minded people to support their claims and they wave such demands off. That indicates that their faith may be trust, but it is not well earned.

 

[blü 2]

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

If I were confronted with that story (to use @Aupmanyav's phrase) I might think it necessary to outline evidence against it rather than ignore it. But it's not an accurate statement about reality, and accordingly scientists would ignore it completely in their work.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The "dream life" you speak of exists at the boundry of what "science and reason" describe. Science and "mysticism" are the duality of one existence.

Perhaps... but until we figure out a way to determine the 'truths' about the realioty of the dream life, it's pure speculation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Perhaps... but until we figure out a way to determine the 'truths' about the realioty of the dream life, it's pure speculation.

Good luck. It's a personal journey.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe I've responded to this statement. Several times in fact. All this repeating is enough to wear anyone down...

I am sorry, but I don't think you've responded appropriately at all, because you haven't seemed to understand what's being said.

1. Science is not the only source of "truth" about "statements of fact." Science is only reliable where such statements can be tested. If I say that "I am usually more depressed on Thursday than on any other day of the week," I am making a statement that purports to be fact, but it is not really one that science can have anything to say about.

2. In the same way, if anyone makes the claim that "God is very real, but completely undetectable in the physical world," well, science can have nothing to say about that. So if you wished to find a way to demonstrate that to be a "true statement" (other than just asserting "it's true because I just said it") you'll have to look elsewhere.

3. It is possible to state that "prayer can be as effective as intravenous immuno-globulin treatment in slowing down the progress of Guillaine-Barre Syndrome," and in fact, this is something that actually can be tested. Medical history has recorded many cases of GBS, and has amassed a great deal of knowledge about how the syndrome progresses (both before and and after the introduction of IVIG, or the other option, plasma pharesis/exchange). And it has demonstrated conclusively that the progressive nature of GBS is certainly lessened by either of those treatments (and by about the same amount each) before rehabilitation can begin.

So, it would be perfectly reasonable and possible to throw a religious solution into that mix, and do the test: using multiple (willing) subjects, administer one (but only one) of the following:

• IVIG
• PLEX
• Prayer.
• Nothing

Then compare the results. If it turns out that both IVIG and PLEX shorten the duration of the decline phase of GBS, and speed the recovery -- each by similar amounts -- and also that both Prayer and Nothing have no effect (meaning that Prayer is equal to nothing), you now have real information to work with.

The problem that believers have, in this sort of thing, is this:

• Sick people sometimes get better, and sometimes don't
• There is a fairly well-known rate at which this happens in the absence of any treatment
• If a treatment can be shown to alter that rate significantly, then it is reasonable to assume the treatment has something to do with it
• If prayer results in exactly the same rate of getting better or not as doing nothing, then it is reasonable to assume that prayer has the same effect as nothing -- that is, none.
• So far, all the experiments attempting to verify the efficacy of prayer as a means of treatment have demonstrated that it is not (that it is essentially the same as doing nothing)
• BUT -- AND HERE'S THE BIG REVEAL -- to the non-science-literate person, there is only one experiment, and it is always the immediate and personal one: "My uncle got GBS and he recovered because we prayed -- this proves that prayer is effective." This kind of thinking does not make any reference whatever to the guy in the room 3 doors down who got GBS, was prayed for, and whose recovery was delayed. That "noise" is not part of the date that the believer is paying any attention to.

 

[Nakosis]

I wasn't attempting to claim that religion is 'better' than science. I'm only saying that science isn't the only way to ascertain 'truth.' In fact, there are areas where science has no business TRYING to ascertain truth.

........and vice versa, of course. I wouldn't go against my doctor's advice either, in terms of medical stuff. But then, my religion doesn't ask me to do that, either.

Sorry, an extreme example.

So how would you go about ascertaining truth? Or one way you might go about it since in saying science isn't the only way, implying multiple possible approaches.

I'm not conner you into defending religious truth. I'm actually curious, and have some of my own ideas.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right, and the reason I am claiming it is the following: whenever I point out religions have repeatable results in certain areas, those valuing empiricism only cry that isn't good enough. On what do they base that view? Better yet- on what do they base the idea that science is the only valid verification method? All I've gotten so far is what I knew I'd likely get- that science's merits is based on the rules of science itself.

Talking about empirical validation is an appeal to science's rules. It doesn't actually prove science alone is valid.

Okay, if you answer my question, I promise you I will give it my most careful -- and (as much as I am able) unbiased -- attention. Just give me some examples of what you refer to as "religions [having] repeatable results in certain areas."

Now, before you do that, please remember to be careful: you need to show that there was a need, there was some attempt to use religion to resolve the need, there is a way to determine whether that use of religion did in fact contribute to the resolution, and that it can be repeated generally.

If, as you claim, "religions have repeatable results," then you must know of some. If you don't, however, well I'm afraid you've just made a claim you can't substantiate, and that the rest of us need pay no more attention to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If I were confronted with that story (to use @Aupmanyav's phrase) I might think it necessary to outline evidence against it rather than ignore it. But it's not an accurate statement about reality, and accordingly scientists would ignore it completely in their work.

Creation around 4,000 BC (one of the biggest jokes), existence of God and soul, are questions that have been discussed in internet forums so often that they merit only a from me.

.. for the lack of a global flood, ..

Yeah, the flood. Where did the waters that covered even the top of mountains 40 cubits deep (correct me if I am wrong) come from or go back?

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, the flood. Where did the waters that covered even the top of mountains 40 cubits deep (correct me if I am wrong) come from or go back?

It'd take 1.113 bn cubic miles of water, over and above the water presently on the earth, to cover Mt Everest 25 ft deep, even allowing for a lower height back then.

I guess it fell over the edges of the earth and is now part of the waters below, mentioned in Genesis 1.6. No doubt our Creo friends have checked those edges for signs of erosion dating to 2348 BCE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creation around 4,000 BC (one of the biggest jokes), existence of God and soul, are questions that have been discussed in internet forums so often that they merit only a from me.Yeah, the flood. Where did the waters that covered even the top of mountains 40 cubits deep (correct me if I am wrong) come from or go back?

The mountains were not always mountains. You should study just a little geology. Those used to be low lying sediments. Have you heard of plate tectonics? The continents are not stationary over geologic time. They move. Where two plates meet, for example when a continental plate runs into an oceanic plate, the denser oceanic plate is over ridden. The continental plate tends to compress and uplift as a result. Mountains are build out of what used to be shallow seas. This is all understood very well today. Do you need sources? I can supply some if you want to learn more.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And it has demonstrated conclusively that the progressive nature of GBS is certainly lessened by either of those treatments (and by about the same amount each) before rehabilitation can begin.

That is obfuscation. What I read from Wikipedia is that GBS is 'polyneuropathy'. Its causes and treatment are not exactly known. If medicine and prayer have been found to have equal effects, even no treatment or homeopathy also will have the same course of the disease. Probably there is some mechanism in the body which puts it right again.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The mountains were not always mountains. You should study just a little geology. Those used to be low lying sediments. Have you heard of plate tectonics? The continents are not stationary over geologic time. They move.

Yes, I have heard of plate tectonics, actually studied it for my bachelor's degree (I could name the geological specimen in my college more often than not just by feeling their grain, rather than examining them with open eyes). I was introduced to plate tectonics by my grandfather who was writing his 8,000 verse Sanskrit Hindu Law Book 'Vishweshwara Smriti' in 1950's. Mountains were always there in history. They came up and went down along with the plates. Earth was never only of low-lying sediments, because low-lying sediments by definition require mountains for their sediments. You are telling me this when I am sitting in the world's fastest subduction zone, with a speed of 9 to 16 cm per year, the Himalayas. We have moved some 6,400 km in some 80 million years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I have heard of plate tectonics, actually studied it for my bachelor's degree (I could name the geological specimen in my college more often than not just by feeling their grain, rather than examining them with open eyes). I was introduced to plate tectonics by my grandfather who was writing his 8,000 verse Sanskrit Hindu Law Book 'Vishweshwara Smriti' in 1950's. Mountains were always there in history. They came up and went down along with the plates. Earth was never only of low-lying sediments, because low-lying sediments by definition require mountains for their sediments. You are telling me this when I am sitting in the world's fastest subduction zone, with a speed of 9 to 16 cm per year, the Himalayas. We have moved some 6,400 km in some 80 million years.

Then why did you ask that amazingly ignorant question about fossils on top of the mountains? If you seriously have studied and understood plate tectonics you would have known the answer.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well since enough people persist in asking me for examples of people claiming to be materialists or strict empiricists. I suppose I had better respond- though I am beginning to feel like all this repeating is spinning my wheels.

You will note, if you scroll up the reply feed far enough- that I explained how it can be inferred one is a strict empiricist, or a materialist. I haven't encountered anyone on this particular forum claiming to be a strict materialist. That I will grant you. It is on other forums I have encountered this.

The strict empiricism though is easy to infer. I don't see how it isn't a reasonable inference. Correct me if I wrong.

Now since I just got home- let me scroll through all these comments. Peace everyone

Inference is not the same as providing evidence. If you think this strict denial of all other routes to the "truth" is a problem, surely you can readily provide a link to some boffin professor and his/her fanbase that readily ascribes to such thinking. Evidence is far stronger than mere inference.

The only one I can think of who comes close might be Hitchens. But even then.

And really simply saying the scientific method is the best most reliable way to discern facts isn't being a strict materialist. That's just a statement about the reliability of the method in relation to others.

And what exactly are the repeatable results from religion?
Because there are religious experiences to be sure. But I haven't been able to replicate any specifically, since the process differs person to person (never mind religion to religion.) Now the Dharmics hand wave it away as just humans being individualistic. Fine whatever. Some Abrahamics might counter that the person didn't believe well enough and thus was cheated out of an experience. Fine whatever. But that's still not really the same thing as say my old high school Chemistry teacher telling us the outcome of mixing two specific chemicals together. Because if we doubted such a statement all we would have to do is mix said chemicals together and observe the outcome.
You can't really do that with religion as far as I can see. People seem to react differently and the results aren't concrete. They aren't repeatable. Even the circumstances vary.

Now people can have whatever faith they wish. They can believe whatever they please and take comfort wherever they find it. Far be it from me to try to take away from a person's spiritual awakening.

But that is not science. I'm sorry it's just not. and the difference is clear. A detective does not follow the religous path to get to the solution of a crime. But they might do so in their private lives. And there is a reason for that, as far as I can see.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then why did you ask that amazingly ignorant question about fossils on top of the mountains? If you seriously have studied and understood plate tectonics you would have known the answer.

Did I? You might be confusing me with some other member. I was talking about water covering the peaks of the highest mountains to the depth of 40 cubits.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I guess it fell over the edges of the earth and is now part of the waters below, mentioned in Genesis 1.6.

Yeah, even the Vedas talk of the dark watery world where the serpent/demons lives and who abducts sun for a period of time. Indra has to engage in a yearly war to bring back the sun. But before that, Indra had to be plied with Soma to make him stronger. That was the biggest story with Indo-Iranian Aryans and its counter-parts are found in all old European cultures.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Right, and the reason I am claiming it is the following: whenever I point out religions have repeatable results in certain areas, those valuing empiricism only cry that isn't good enough. On what do they base that view? Better yet- on what do they base the idea that science is the only valid verification method? All I've gotten so far is what I knew I'd likely get- that science's merits is based on the rules of science itself.

Talking about empirical validation is an appeal to science's rules. It doesn't actually prove science alone is valid.

Many people follow the precepts and practices of a multitude of religions and spiritual practices to the same end. They have done this for centuries.

Is this not valid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I? You might be confusing me with some other member. I was talking about water covering the peaks of the highest mountains to the depth of 40 cubits.

Yes and if you understood plate tectonics you would not have asked that way about that myth. Some questions tell us that people have no clue about the subject. Were you just trolling? It seems that you are admitting that now.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let me quote my post. If it is not the post which started all our discussion, kindly point to that post.

Yeah, the flood. Where did the waters that covered even the top of mountains 40 cubits deep (correct me if I am wrong) come from or go back?

Yes, I sometimes troll, but quite rarely. I am not admitting that I have trolled in this topic. I have not even mentioned fossils. Kindly tell me what new things you would like to tell me about plate tectonics. I surely did not do my master's in Geology, but I have a fair idea of plate tectonics.