Religious Evidence, Scientific Evidence?

[Sunstone]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other?

I would suggest that evidence which is intersubjectively verifiable is more reliable.

 

[bobhikes]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

At there root not really any difference or any superiority unless God actually wrote the holy books. If the holy books are written by man and then consensus validates them, science is no different, the consensus is slightly different as with holy books the education level is varied but with science the consensus level is highly educated. That being said all education given is a consensus of varied intelligence. The reason we support one or the other is results. Currently science is giving us the best results; however, problems are arising pretty rapidly now that science will not be able to resolve.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

Undoubtedly. Most of the non-religious would hardly accept written material from the past as being anything like reliable evidence. It can hardly be tested to its veracity in most cases - as to being unbiased and verified by independent material. The opposite is the case with science, since if something cannot be verified it generally remains in the realms of theory - which is where most religions truly belong.

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Mostly it is written material for religions, with some circumstantial evidence too, but not necessarily verifying any claims. Science has all sorts of evidence to verify any claims - from rival theories that might be tested, to the tests that come be conducted, and the evidence we often see with our own eyes. If an alarm bell rings then we usually look rather closely to make sure we have the right conclusions to verify our assumptions.

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

No contest. next.

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

They should have the same basis, but undoubtedly the two do seem to vary as to how they present evidence and as to what is accepted as appropriate evidence. The religious, for many, seem to rely on rather insubstantial evidence much of the time.

If so, what are those different ways?

Factual as opposed to not?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Superior, as in science is based in reality? Perhaps that is the one major difference.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

No evidence is superior. Both have different types of evidence that supports its own claims not another. Though, they do have theopsychology that looks into the psychological views of religion, religious, and the affects.

Religion relies on experience, interpretation, confirmation, and culture as evidence.

Science is more about data, retesting, non-bias conclusions (not a sciencewiz)

Religion is more personal than science. It has more cultural umph and doesnt give data for its claims but lets the claims be experienced and lived by those who believe it. Totally different.

 

[Trackdayguy]

I would suggest that evidence which is intersubjectively verifiable is more reliable.

I would agree, "the man with the experience has the legs on the man with an argument"

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Science relies on hard, objective evidence and facts, including the sciences of archaeology and history. Religion not only relies on subjective emotion, its main focus is on totally unverifiable hearsay which is the basis for all supernatural events and revelation. Science adapts to new information, religion, being the infallible "word of God", does not. Science confirms it's theories with observation and experiment. Religion confirms its dogma to be set in stone according to God (read clerics).

 

[sealchan]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

The evidence for spiritual truths comes out of the subjective recognition of truth in story and art so far as it leads to a sense of inner meaning about one's life. I will quibble with the term religious here as being the institutionalization of the spiritual experience. The institutionalization of experience helps to promote spiritual experience but it also has a way of "protecting" people from having a deeper spritual experience through its self imposed rules and requirements.

 

[osgart]

Its absolutely true that religion is a total else method of arriving at knowledge. And it is far simpler in its reasoning. It relies on what can be inferred from observation by anyone vs. relying on esoteric observations in science.

Religion has a goal, in achieving its logic. Science tries more to take things as they are and not leap into any connections beyond the observable and demonstrable.

So religion always tries to see beyond, and science takes things as is as far as they can tell.

Religion does everything science will not do.

I don't see them playing out of the same rulebook whatsoever.

I wonder though why so many scientists are so philosophical and dogmatic, and then calling that science.

 

[WalterTrull]

I'm on Dr. Henry's side of the mental universe divide. I think that evidence is whatever you need it to be to walk. How do I cross this chasm. A bridge would help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously I far prefer scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is "undeniable" in the sense that scientific evidence either supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. If the observation supports a hypothesis or theory it is evidence for that theory. If it opposes it it is evidence against that idea. A simple question of "does this observation support my theory" is very hard to deny. It is a concept that some theists, usually fundamentalists, do not handle very well.

When it comes to "religious evidence" I do not even think that there are any consistent definitions. Though I could be wrong.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Its absolutely true that religion is a total else method of arriving at knowledge. And it is far simpler in its reasoning. It relies on what can be inferred from observation by anyone vs. relying on esoteric observations in science.

I'm not sure that is exactly right. Science just goes a lot deeper, and it is open to any who have the patience, ability and will do the work to understand what is being proposed or asserted.

 

[George-ananda]

Religious Evidence, Scientific Evidence?

Evidence is anything that supports a position. John Doe said he saw a ghost is evidence (of course not proof) that ghosts exist. The common problem in debates is people conflate the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. There can be evidence both for and against something as in court cases and a jury must decide.

In spiritual and religious matters we are our own jury and our judgment holds sway over its jurisdiction of one person.

Science uses evidence to create theories and then tests the theories. Unfortunately, the important questions of religion and spirituality are not testable at this time so science has little to tell us on those subjects.

My jury of one, has seen enough (so-called paranormal things) to believe there are dramatically important things outside of science's current reach and consider the teachings of other wisdom traditions in forming my understanding of reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My jury of one, has seen enough (so-called paranormal things) to believe there are dramatically important things outside of science's current reach and consider the teachings of other wisdom traditions in forming my understanding of reality.

Which is the exact opposite for me in that I have never come across such.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Evidence is whatever is evident. But evidence of what? We decide what that evidence implies

There are two broad categories of evidence: subjective evidence, or that which is evident only to the subject, and objective evidence, which is evident to us all.

The religious cite examples of each as evidence of God.

The subjective evidence is that they feel that they have experienced God. perhaps in mystical experiences. That's just one possible interpretation, another being a purely naturalistic explanation from psychology, is just as tenable if not more so, since it doesn't require the existence of a god to be correct.

The objective evidence that they offer is the universe and our world around us, but that too can be understood naturalistically, making the universe evidence of nothing except that it exists. It offers few clues to its origin. Choosing to interpret complexity or beauty as a sign of intelligent design, for example, is to jump to an unfounded conclusion, and hence an error in evaluating evidence.

The Bible is also offered as evidence of God, but the answer is the same. The Bible is only evidence that it was written and compiled.

So what do the terms scientific evidence and religious evidence mean? Nothing, really. There's only evidence, such as the universe, the Bible, and our inner states, and how we choose to interpret it.

 

[George-ananda]

Which is the exact opposite for me in that I have never come across such.

By that, do you mean you never personally had an experience?

 

[Mock Turtle]

By that, do you mean you never personally had an experience?

Nope. Not that I would put down to such. I think I have detailed any possible instances in my journal (link below). The same goes for a few friends too.

Too much monkey business (You talking to me, huh?)

 

[George-ananda]

Nope. Not that I would put down to such. I think I have detailed any possible instances in my journal. The same goes for a few friends too.

Well, for me I also consider what I can learn about the 99.9999.....% of the world beyond my personal experience and inner circle.

I have some experiences I suspect were paranormal (I don't consider myself very psychic on the scale) but the cumulative weight of now thousands of stories has me convinced of the existence of the paranormal beyond reasonable doubt.

We each must judge for ourselves though.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

John Doe said he saw a ghost is evidence (of course not proof) that ghosts exist.

This is a nice illustration of why the terms religious evidence and scientific evidence aren't really useful. This is just evidence, and the two of us interpret it differently.

You see evidence for ghosts there, and thus it functions as evidence for religious beliefs for you if we can include the paranormal with the supernatural for present purposes.

What I see is something different. I see a man claiming he saw a ghost, and nothing more, not evidence for the existence ghosts. That claim is what was evidence (evident), and that claim is the evidence to evaluate.

I'm going to say that he either saw a ghost, saw something that he misinterpreted as a ghost, had a dream or hallucination, or is lying. His claim is not evidence for any of those.

Thus how can we call this evidence religious or scientific? It's just what was evident.

It's the two of us that tend to be more one or the other according to how we process the same evidence.

Good topic.

 

[sun rise]

I'm going to use Rumi to respond since he put it much better than I could:

There are two kinds of intelligence: one acquired,
as a child in school memorizes facts and concepts
from books and from what the teacher says,
collecting information from the traditional sciences
as well as from the new sciences.

With such intelligence you rise in the world.
You get ranked ahead or behind others
in regard to your competence in retaining
information. You stroll with this intelligence
in and out of fields of knowledge, getting always more
marks on your preserving tablets.

There is another kind of tablet,
one already completed and preserved inside you.
A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness
in the center of the chest. This other intelligence
does not turn yellow or stagnate. It's fluid,
and it doesn't move from outside to inside
through the conduits of plumbing-learning.

This second knowing is a fountainhead
from within you, moving out.