Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[shunyadragon]

Er, yes you did...
"This entire post represents an erroneous 'arguing from ignorance'"

No it isn't.
"This issue cannot be resolved due to lack of evidence" is not an argument from ignorance.

Your initial use was questionable. Your "clarification" confirmed this.
Look, don't worry too much. People quite often misunderstand informal fallacies. You aren't the first and won't be the last.

Look, don't worry too much. People quite often misunderstand informal fallacies. You aren't the first and won't be the last.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no "scientific proof" of reincarnation. There are only anecdotal claims.

Though it's amusing the way people keep linking scientific studies, that don't support the conclusions they are making about it.

Science doesn't draw conclusions because it doesn't understand what has happened, this kind of appeal to mystery, or argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies are what theists leap to.

 

[1213]

...
Science is constantly tested and verified repeatedly ....

If you believe so.

 

[Sheldon]

Here's another fact. Cosmologists estimate that our current knowledge of the cosmos stands at about 13%. Leaving 87% currently unknown to us. That percentage is so high that what we think we know, now, could easily be completely overturned as we come to know more (if we come to know more).

Or not, since your assertion seems little more than pure conjecture. These kinds of claims are often used by religious apologists to undermine scientific knowledge, though ironically even were this to happen it would not in any way represent objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. Like creationists, who mistakenly seem to think that making spurious claims to have falsified aspects of evolution, remotely lends any credence to any creation myth, which of course it would not, even in the astronomically unlikely event evolution was entirely reversed tomorrow, and given the amount of objective evidence that supports it, we are as likely to discover the earth is flat after all.

Here's another fact for you. We currently have no idea where or how life began, or how common it is in the universe. We have some theories, but they conflict, and are completely unproven.

I sense you're implying something here, but it's not clear what? The OP cited facts that either directly or ostensibly are at odds with certain claims made by religions, since science is not claiming to know how life originated, I'm not sure why you are telling us this as if we didn't know it was a fact already?

 

[Sheldon]

The strange about socalled facts is, they change when science discover new knowledge about the topic. So facts aren't that reliable either.

This is pure hyperbole, one of the methods of science's greatest strengths is that a basic requirement is that all ideas must remain tentative, no matter how much objective evidence support them, thus they remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence. This does not remotely mean they are unreliable, that's nonsense.

The likelihood an accepted scientific theory like evolution for example, would be entirely or even substantively overturned, is about as likely as the earth really being flat and at the centre of the universe.

Religious belief are based on faith and belief in a teaching. But that does not make it less valuable for those who believe in it.

Faith is iceless in validating claims or beliefs, since there is literally nothing one cannot believe using it, and of course this couldn't be more clearly demonstrated than it being used by adherents of countless religions to believe in different things ,and in literally thousands of different deities that humans have imagined are real. Likewise blind adherence to doctrine or dogma tells us little to nothing about the validity of those doctrines.

 

[Sheldon]

shunyadragon said: ↑
...
Science is constantly tested and verified repeatedly ....

If you believe so.

Are you denying this simple fact? What is it you think science does if not test and verify ideas? All scientific ideas must remain tentative, and open to continuous scrutiny, it is a basic requirement, no idea is ever ringfenced from critical scrutiny, no matter how much objective evidence supports it.

In stark contrast to religions of course.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you believe so.

Reflects an ancient mythological religious agenda without science.

 

[Jagella]

"Pope John Paul II, in a speech given on October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” states that “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”1 He goes on to note that the progressive acceptance of the theory by researchers and the convergence of the latest discoveries in various sciences are “decisive arguments in favor of the theory.”2" from The Pope and Evolution

The Pope doesn't believe that species have evolved without God's direction. His version of evolution is not the Theory of Evolution known to science.

 

[Jagella]

Yes, he did. And so did Deadpool and Superman and Palpatine and Sherlock Holmes. Literary figures do that often.

Oh OK--I understand now. Yes, in the Gospel story Jesus did indeed perform wonders. He could do anything within the context of his story that the Gospel writers could imagine (or borrow from other religions).

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no "scientific proof" of reincarnation. There are only anecdotal claims.

Perhaps to say that there is no scientific evidence of reincarnation will be better.

 

[Jagella]

You don't want it to be true.

Are you saying I need to want to believe what you say in order to believe it? You can convince only those who have a predisposition to believe your claims. If a person lacks that desire, then you're completely stymied by their skepticism.

But you are right--I don't want your claims to be true. While I won't refuse to believe you, I think I would be foolish to believe your wild stories on your word alone. Such skepticism on my part is wise because not only is a sucker born every minute, but con artists are always present in the delivery room.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is pure hyperbole, one of the methods of science's greatest strengths is that a basic requirement is that all ideas must remain tentative, no matter how much objective evidence support them, thus they remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence. This does not remotely mean they are unreliable, that's nonsense.

The likelihood an accepted scientific theory like evolution for example, would be entirely or even substantively overturned, is about as likely as the earth really being flat and at the centre of the universe.



Faith is iceless in validating claims or beliefs, since there is literally nothing one cannot believe using it, and of course this couldn't be more clearly demonstrated than it being used by adherents of countless religions to believe in different things ,and in literally thousands of different deities that humans have imagined are real. Likewise blind adherence to doctrine or dogma tells us little to nothing about the validity of those doctrines.

Agree to disagree with you on this one

 

[KWED]

I think the believer can judge for himself the overall intent and value of the text.

Obviously, but this implies that whatever the reader genuinely believes the text to mean, it therefore means - which obviously opens up a whole can of worms.

 

[Sheldon]

Agree to disagree with you on this one

You're not disagreeing with me, you're disputing scientific methodology. What's more some cursory research would disavow you of this error, but that's of course up to you.

 

[KWED]

I've heard multiple cases of miraculous healings seemingly directly tied to a spiritual personage. Way enough evidence for me to believe this happens.

"Anecdotal hearsay" is not a synonym for "evidence".
Do you accept all claims of spiritual healing, communication with gods, magical abilities, etc to be true?
If not, what is your criteria for differentiating?

My best understanding is that these acts involve forces and energies outside of the physical plane of nature familiar to current science.

What brought you to that "best understanding"? What evidence do you have for these metaphysical forces and energies?

Perhaps science of the future will understand this better,

Our future understanding of these issues will almost certainly be better than in the past.
When we examine all the advances made over the centuries, they all lead away from the spiritual and towards the natural. Of course, this does not mean that there can't be some massive paradigm shift through some groundbreaking, unexpected discovery - but the trend is clear and any projection would have to be based on what science knows rather than on what believers hope for.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You're not disagreeing with me, you're disputing scientific methodology. What's more some cursory research would disavow you of this error, but that's of course up to you.

Science has its place for sure, but it does not trumph my faith and belief in spiritual and religious way of thinking

 

[KWED]

Look, don't worry too much. People quite often misunderstand informal fallacies. You aren't the first and won't be the last.

I see what you did there.
Well done!

 

[Sheldon]

Science has its place for sure, but it does not trumph my faith and belief in spiritual and religious way of thinking

Well if there is a direct conflict science absolutely would trump unevidenced faith based belief, so I think what you mean is that you prefer to ignore this, which I guess is your choice.

However if you were ill you'd probably seek medical care derived from science, you are posting these views using technologies that are all derived from science, and likewise I imagine you use innumerable pieces of technology every single day derived from science. So I'm not sure how you conjure that level of cognitive dissonance. If someone built a plane and used science to design and build it and operate it as safely as current knowledge can achieve, and others simply used faith, and prayer, which would you prefer to fly in? It's a no brainer of course.

 

[George-ananda]

Obviously, but this implies that whatever the reader genuinely believes the text to mean, it therefore means - which obviously opens up a whole can of worms.

Yes, intelligence is required.

 

[George-ananda]

"Anecdotal hearsay" is not a synonym for "evidence".
Do you accept all claims of spiritual healing, communication with gods, magical abilities, etc to be true?
If not, what is your criteria for differentiating?

I think each case requires an intelligent full consideration.

What brought you to that "best understanding"? What evidence do you have for these metaphysical forces and energies?

Decades of consideration of the claims and evidence as well as input from those claiming direct experience with the superphysical realms.

Our future understanding of these issues will almost certainly be better than in the past.
When we examine all the advances made over the centuries, they all lead away from the spiritual and towards the natural. Of course, this does not mean that there can't be some massive paradigm shift through some groundbreaking, unexpected discovery - but the trend is clear and any projection would have to be based on what science knows rather than on what believers hope for.

It's been a few centuries of modern science and I've not seen these explanations for so-called paranormal and miraculous phenomena beyond non-acceptance of their very existence. I haven't really seen this class of phenomena ever really resolved by 'natural' explanations as you are suggesting. This includes miraculous healings seemingly involving certain spiritual figures.

I believe the key to perhaps future science's understanding will come with acceptance of planes of nature beyond the physical plane and in dimensions not directly detectable by the three-dimensional physical senses and instruments.