Religious Evidence, Scientific Evidence?

[George-ananda]

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.

Good topic.

i actually consider all those possibilities too in each individual case.

But one other thing I also consider is the cumulative weight of a large body of cases considered for quantity, quality and consistency.

 

[Skwim]

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?

External: those that are convincing to others. Internal: those that are only convincing to an individual.

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

Depends on one's needs. If one is looking for the truths of the world around him then scientific evidence would be one's choice. If one is looking for some kind of internal reassurance then religious evidence would probably be the way to go

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

Science relies on objective confirmation. Religion relies on subjective confirmation.

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

No. It all depends on one's objective.

.

 

[Apologes]

I don't think a religion is something that sticks to a particular methodology when considering evidence (some dismiss the notion in general).

 

[YmirGF]

Scientific knowledge is based on intellect and deductive reasoning based on observation.
Religious/Spiritual knowledge is based on emotion and mental gymnastics, sometimes feigning logical implications.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We each must judge for ourselves though.

First and foremost we must each judge the quality and, hence, the credibility of our discernment.

 

[idav]

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?

Religious evidence tends to use evidence that is not necessarily quantifiable like how much you love a person for example. Quantifiable things may be more easily considered as truth but doesn’t make things like feelings any less important.

 

[blü 2]

Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

Supernatural belief is wholly unsupported by evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry.

It doesn't even have a coherent ontology.

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

The ones I'm aware of are all concern the Abrahamic religions ─

1. The claim of sufficiency of faith. If you have faith that X is the case, then no evidence is required. The sources of that faith, far more often childhood indoctrination and acculturation than not, are deliberately not examined, indeed rarely identified or mentioned.

2. The claim of sufficiency of personal experience. The most common type of personal experience I've found reported is the conviction that the subject is mentally in the presence of a great abstract power, accompanied by an agreeable emotional state, of tranquillity, awe, ecstasy or the like. Only very rarely does the subject report receiving information, and almost never information useful to reasoned enquiry.

I don't doubt there are other kinds of experience, and we're not concerned here with hallucinations and disorders of the brain.

3. The claim of access to reliable authority towit the scriptures relevant to that religion eg the Tanakh, the NT, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon &c. Responses to scientific, archaeological and other evidence contradicting scripture differs depending on whether the source is claimed to be infallible or not.

4. The claim of democratic truth ─ stories, hearsay, use of supernatural beliefs to interpret natural events, and other forms of social reinforcement.

Since I speak as an observer, not an insider, I'm happy to have any errors corrected.

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

The answer to that depends on your worldview.

I like the question, What's true in reality? and in my view it can only be answered by the evidence of reality, the evidence of reasoned enquiry (science, history &c).

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Scientific knowledge is based on intellect and deductive reasoning based on observation.
Religious/Spiritual knowledge is based on emotion and mental gymnastics, sometimes feigning logical implications.

Does just saying," science says..." settle things ______
Scientific knowledge is an 'adventure of the mind' and scientific research has brought things to reality.
But, does science always solve problems.
Run-away scientific technology today can also be a threat:
Matter to energy having the atomic energy or atomic bomb. Nuclear weapons today to create destruction.
Earth was created to be used and Not abused.
Technology has been helpful in producing earth's food but science can't seem to bring about even food distribution.
Technology has brought about replacement parts for knee and hip, etc. but can't change morals.
Technology has made communication advancement for both practical use but also immoral or unethical use.
So, scientific or technological problems can ignore or can even abuse problems.
Problems like air and water pollution, green-house gasses, ozone problems, oil leaks even military problems.
Guided missiles are often miss-guided missiles under human wisdom.
So, to me mankind needs to have a 'balanced view of science' because science can't determine our future.
Whereas, I find the Bible does shed light on today's issues of man using science in an ethical way or not.
Food shortage, poverty, crime, violence, family neglect, even diseases increases when man turns away from the moral breakdown of the Golden Rule, etc. Social ills are Not from Godly wisdom but from man.
If scientific knowledge could cure, or bring about ethical society there would be No need for Jesus to come.

 

[YmirGF]

Does just saying," science says..." settle things ______
Scientific knowledge is an 'adventure of the mind' and scientific research has brought things to reality.
But, does science always solve problems.
Run-away scientific technology today can also be a threat:
Matter to energy having the atomic energy or atomic bomb. Nuclear weapons today to create destruction.
Earth was created to be used and Not abused.
Technology has been helpful in producing earth's food but science can't seem to bring about even food distribution.
Technology has brought about replacement parts for knee and hip, etc. but can't change morals.
Technology has made communication advancement for both practical use but also immoral or unethical use.
So, scientific or technological problems can ignore or can even abuse problems.
Problems like air and water pollution, green-house gasses, ozone problems, oil leaks even military problems.
Guided missiles are often miss-guided missiles under human wisdom.
So, to me mankind needs to have a 'balanced view of science' because science can't determine our future.
Whereas, I find the Bible does shed light on today's issues of man using science in an ethical way or not.
Food shortage, poverty, crime, violence, family neglect, even diseases increases when man turns away from the moral breakdown of the Golden Rule, etc. Social ills are Not from Godly wisdom but from man.
If scientific knowledge could cure, or bring about ethical society there would be No need for Jesus to come.

Well, I'm glad we have that sorted. G'day!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

First and foremost we must each judge the quality and, hence, the credibility of our discernment.

Sounds like a courtroom issue judging the motive to be ethical technology or not.

 

[Deidre]

I'd say that science has a more provable process, whereby others will take it with objective value. Faith/religion could be considered logical, but it's more of a subjective type of knowledge or rationale. I believe in God, again and for me, I have reasons that are convincing to me, but might not be to you, or someone else. Further, my idea of God might differ from another believer's view. We both believe in a god, but have differing views, so our beliefs would be based on subjective reasoning, it would seem.

An example would be that we both can agree on the how to define the color, blue. But, there are many shades of blue, nonetheless, the color is still considered blue. This is based on an agreed upon understanding of how we define the color, blue. If I show you a white piece of chalk, and you tell me that it's blue, you would be wrong, based on the objective definition of the color blue. But, if you follow Islam, and I don't, yet we both believe in God, we might define God, differently. That would be subjective.

I think all of life, is a combination of the two.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other?

Given the fact that ID/creationism tries to gain respect by claiming they have scientific evidence, it would appear that scientific evidence is superior in their eyes. I have yet to see scientists trying to put forward spiritual evidence for the theory of evolution in order to bolster the theory in the eyes of ID/creationists.

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

When it comes to explaining how the physical universe operates, scientific evidence is superior. We have explained more in the last 200 years using the scientific method than all of history before that.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Scientific knowledge is based on intellect and deductive reasoning based on observation.

I would argue that scientific knowledge is inferences based on empirical observations. Inference is a bit different than deductive reasoning. Science isn't able to rule out all possibilities until one is left which is how deductive reasoning works. Instead, science goes with the best model that fits the most data.

 

[YmirGF]

I would argue that scientific knowledge is inferences based on empirical observations. Inference is a bit different than deductive reasoning. Science isn't able to rule out all possibilities until one is left which is how deductive reasoning works. Instead, science goes with the best model that fits the most data.

I can live with that but my sentence is shorter and snappier. Though unstated, inference is assumed.

 

[Cary Cook]

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?

Yes. Science has experimental evidence.
Religion has books written by people who claim that previous books written by other people were inspired by God.

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other?

Yes. Scientific method is superior for determining not only scientific truth, but also truth about God. Perform any experiment (e.g. prayer tests) with God, and you will know more about God than you knew before you did the experiment. Test any promise in scripture by scientific method, and you will know the same.

 

[Segev Moran]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths.

done

Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

To me it seems more that science have evidence and religion have none. (not valid ones at least)

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

I would say that the religious evidence is similar to the one used in a court of law. (which is slowly improving but still not very efficient or just)

Court of law for example treats eye witness as a strong evidence, while the truth is that eye witness is one of the lowest forms of evidence.
Court of law can give a decision based on subjective pov of a judge or a jury.
Court of law can decide something and it can be very hard to change it even at times when there are things that prove it wrong.

Science is much less biased.
You can't decide your theory works without VALID evidence.
a valid evidence is one that can provide the same answer when examined.

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

I'll give an example:

If 100 people would come and tell you that they saw Jesus walk on water...
In the POV of religion, it will be considered as a very strong evidence.
NONE of the religion can present even ONE evidence that is considered as an objective none biased evidence.

Now lets assume 50'000 people make the same claim... in a scientific POV we will take the issue very seriously and probably invest much time and effort in understand what is really going on.
When did he walk on water?
How deep were they?
What was he wearing?
what led him to do so?
did other people tried to walk on those water the same time and couldn't?
what was the weather? where in the water did he walk?
and many many many more questions and measurements and ideas until finding enough evidence (objective) to state that such a thing is probably true.

So far, NO VALID evidence was ever presented by any religion anywhere in the world!
Not a single evidence or proof could be presenting that even hints about the validity of spiritual and ,mystical ideas.

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

Science validates evidence.
Religion does not. it simply accepts it as a "leap of faith"

If so, what are those different ways?

see above.. but mainly:

science: anyone can repeat the experiment many times and get the same results.
religion: no one can repeat the experiment as it only works to special people.
science: a theory can correctly predict behaviors and processes. if the prediction fails, the theory is not valid.
religion: if the prediction wasn't true, we just didn't get it right and it is still valid.
science: each evidence must be examined, tested, detailed and explained and be proven to be a valid evidence. (imagine if an accepted and valid evidence to gravity would be that things fall, would you accept the theory of gravity as true only by such evidence?)
religion: some evidence cannot be explained and must be accepted as a something we don't understand.
science: if you find something that contradicts your idea or evidence and provide a better solution, it will be seriously examined.
religion: if you find something that contradicts your idea or evidence, its because you are not looking at it the right way (in the good case, in the bad ones you are simply executed or worse)

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

Nope.
Science and religion are simply two different things.
Science: The study and process of studying and understanding the way our universe works.
Religion: The teaching of how the universe works based on what humans thought true 3000+ years ago.

Today, science is the way to provide answers to anything that relates to our reality.
Religion is more of a social psychological idea that gives people comfort when they are unable or unwilling to deal with reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

Yes, and they are expected to, to a very large extent due to their divergence of scope and interests.

Religious evidence is supposed to more often than not be very personal, emotional and subjective in nature, while scientific evidence is not.

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

In their respective scopes they are indeed superior to the evidence from the other field.

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

To an extent. We should consider that much of religious practice involves faith, acceptance and renounciation as opposed to certainty. Evidence is not supposed to be nearly as important for religion as for science.

The idea that religious doctrines are somehow "sciences of their own" or, even worse, "the true science" are nothing less than serious confusion among communities that no longer understand what religion is supposed to be.

 

[exchemist]

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.

I think the distinction you draw between subjective and objective evidence is crucial and I am not sure why you conclude by belittling the distinction you have made.

Science goes to great lengths to ensure, as far as it can, that observations are objective. Hence the insistence on repeatability and reproducibility and so on. A great deal of time in research, and challenge to research findings from other scientists, is devoted to establishing that observations are objective. A great deal more time is devoted to testing theories against observations.

Religion does not do this at all. It relies far more on subjective individual experience and its practices (forms of prayer, ritual, art and music etc) are designed to promote such experience.

In my personal view, religion belongs with the Humanities, alongside literature and art. I think it has useful things to tell us about human experience and to guide us in living our lives. But I think assessing it in terms of "evidence" is not helpful, just as appreciating a Shakespeare play is not helped by thinking about with the toolkit of science.

 

[tayla]

Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

Some religions claim their revealed knowledge is grounded in physical reality. They cite archeology, history, and science to support their views. But they are mistaken in their use of these disciplines and come to flawed and wrong conclusions.

 

[syo]

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?

interesting questions. orthodox christians believe god is a miracle doer. and miracles require strong faith. the final destination of a miracle believer with strong faith is to live with love. i hope it makes sense. for the christian orthodox scientific evidence is ok as long as it doesn't block love. for orthodox christians miracles are stronger than science.