There is no contradiction in Religion and Science

[Looncall]

I'm thinking you are asking for examples of things I believe that science can not confirm or deny.

I believe Consciousness alone is real and the physical is a creation of Conciousness. This can not be confirmed or denied by 2012 AD science.

I believe we have an etheric, astral and mental body along with a physical body that exist outside of our 'normal' three-dimensional world. This can not be confirmed or denied by sciennce in 2012 AD.

My spiritual beliefs come from my study of the unexplained and the teachings of the eastern (Indian) masters.

All very well, but do you have any actual evidence to support these notions?

 

[InfidelRiot]

I'm thinking you are asking for examples of things I believe that science can not confirm or deny.

Considering that is pseudo-science, yes you can provide examples. Yet, they would not be examples of real science.

 

[George-ananda]

All very well, but do you have any actual evidence to support these notions?

Tons of evidence as I stated in the last line of my post.

[/quote]My spiritual beliefs come from my study of the unexplained and the teachings of the eastern (Indian) masters.[/quote]


These things provide evidence (not scientific proof) of my beliefs. If I see a ghost, this would be EVIDENCE for the existance of ghosts but not PROOF. As I've run into many times on RF, people are confusing the terms EVIDENCE and PROOF.

 

[George-ananda]

Considering that is pseudo-science, yes you can provide examples. Yet, they would not be examples of real science.

You are actually agreeing with my main point here. My point was 'real science' can not confirm or deny my views.

"Real Science' is a great thing but it is limited in the kinds of things it can discuss.

 

[idav]

These things provide evidence (not scientific proof) of my beliefs. If I see a ghost, this would be EVIDENCE for the existance of ghosts but not PROOF. As I've run into many times on RF, people are confusing the terms EVIDENCE and PROOF.

The world is filled with the same evidences that supports many different views. A ghost isn't proof since it could be evidence for something other than a ghost. So yes we all have evidences but what makes a supernatural explanation more plausible than a real world answer?

 

[George-ananda]

The world is filled with the same evidences that supports many different views. A ghost isn't proof since it could be evidence for something other than a ghost. So yes we all have evidences but what makes a supernatural explanation more plausible than a real world answer?

A supernatural explanation becomes more plausible when the quantity and quality of the evidence makes the likelihood of a supernatural explanation more probable than the likelihood of any natural explanations. It is a matter of each person's common sense to judge when/if this threshold is reached.

Back to our ghost example. If multiple people I trust independantly reported a very similar experience with a very similar ghost-like apparation, I would conclude some type of supernatural explanation is more likely than any natural explanation.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Since you cannot measure nor quantify this supernatural evidence, you really cannot claim that its quantity or quality explains anything; it possesses neither such things.

 

[George-ananda]

Since you cannot measure nor quantify this supernatural evidence, you really cannot claim that its quantity or quality explains anything; it possesses neither such things.

Let me start by copying my statement from my earlier post.

"Back to our ghost example. If multiple people I trust independantly reported a very similar experience with a very similar ghost-like apparation, I would conclude some type of supernatural explanation is more likely than any natural explanation."

This belief was reached in the court of my own common sense. There is no way to do a qualitative or quantative analysis on this type of data. I'm not claiming there will ever be enough anectdotal evidence to compel anyone to believe.

Each person must form their own opinion in the court of their own common sense.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

But the court of 'common sense' is a kangaroo court. Your personal hopes and biases will never be recused from the case. That's why independent of yourself, outside evidence and measurement MUST be added.

The comment I made which you responded to is simply my repeated point that you WANT these reports to be EVIDENCE. But they DO NOT FIT the definition of 'evidence'. You are succumbing to a handicap I find mostly among the Christians. Don't let your desire for this to be true and for some secret to be just out of reach, force you to rely in self-affirming 'confirmations' from other people. Weigh your suspicions against the minds of those who disagree with you. If you win because you were right, terrific! If not.... then you were merely wrong.

 

[idav]

A supernatural explanation becomes more plausible when the quantity and quality of the evidence makes the likelihood of a supernatural explanation more probable than the likelihood of any natural explanations. It is a matter of each person's common sense to judge when/if this threshold is reached.

Back to our ghost example. If multiple people I trust independantly reported a very similar experience with a very similar ghost-like apparation, I would conclude some type of supernatural explanation is more likely than any natural explanation.

I could never conclude that some supernatural explanation is more likely than a natural world solutions we are so used to seeing. A metaphysical explanation is only that because of gaps of knowledge. When we fill those gaps we are only left with natural world explanation.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science has many gaps of knowledge it is on its journey never knowing when and where it will end.

 

[George-ananda]

But the court of 'common sense' is a kangaroo court. Your personal hopes and biases will never be recused from the case.

Yes, the quality of the court's opinons are determined by the ability to be as objective as possible in considering both sides. What are our alternatives to this court? To believe only things provable by 'hard science'. And dismiss all theological, philosophical and spiritual speculations?

That's why independent of yourself, outside evidence and measurement MUST be added.

You seem to be saying that we can't use anectdotal evidence for anything. If person A said he saw person B kill person C is that not EVIDENCE to be considered but not PROOF. Of course in considering the evidence we also must weigh 'the personal hopes and biases' of person A when considering the testimony.
　
I would love to see objective evidence and measurements from an anectdotal ghost story but unfortunately that information will never be available to me. So do we simply dismiss all anectdotal stories? Or do we consider them and ALSO weigh the possibility of 'personal hopes and biases' and other human failings in relating stories to others. I say the latter. We must each attempt to be as objective as possible in our own 'court of common sense' when judging what is the most plausible understanding. That is what I, you and everybody else does on any number of subjects.

The comment I made which you responded to is simply my repeated point that you WANT these reports to be EVIDENCE.

Once again you are confusing the words 'EVIDENCE' and 'PROOF'. Anectdotal stories are evidence but not proof. And secondly, you seem to underestimate my ability to think objectively despite this being an emotionally packed issue. My mind has been honed to a razor's edge (smirks expected). But seriously, I believe the non-believers are often worse than believers in clinging to biases. I really believe I have been objective here.

But they DO NOT FIT the definition of 'evidence'.

Yes, they do. See above.

You are succumbing to a handicap I find mostly among the Christians. Don't let your desire for this to be true and for some secret to be just out of reach, force you to rely in self-affirming 'confirmations' from other people. Weigh your suspicions against the minds of those who disagree with you.

I am well aware of the handicap you warn against here and agree that is a danger. I've read and searched out a great deal of skeptical writings on many subjects and am quite aware of their arguments. And I believe I have maintained fairness in my considerations.

If you win because you were right, terrific! If not.... then you were merely wrong.

How will we ever know with 100% certainity if we won or lost in these controversial areas? Maybe someday in the future 'hard science' will issue PROOFS and DISPROOFS on these things. Until then, all we can have is our personal evolving opinions reached through the best objective evaluations we can muster.

 

[George-ananda]

I could never conclude that some supernatural explanation is more likely than a natural world solutions we are so used to seeing. A metaphysical explanation is only that because of gaps of knowledge. When we fill those gaps we are only left with natural world explanation.

I do not believe anything is supernatural either in the strict sense of the term. 'Supernatural' is an english word we use in these discussions because we don't have a better word.

Ultimately, if it happens, it's natural. My point is that science in 2012 AD has an incomplete understanding of all that is natural. And that this incompleteness includes spiritual dimensions that some scientists are speculating on but science in general is a long way from wrapping its hands around.

 

[George-ananda]

Science has many gaps of knowledge it is on its journey never knowing when and where it will end.

Good point. I think many things we currently mislabel 'supernatural' are real phenomenas that will someday be understood as natural. This includes the spiritual dimensions.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes, the quality of the court's opinons are determined by the ability to be as objective as possible in considering both sides. What are our alternatives to this court? To believe only things provable by 'hard science'. And dismiss all theological, philosophical and spiritual speculations?

Um, yes.
Your theology should never be based on anything that denies reality. If ti does, it's simply fantasy. The Spirtual MUST interface with the Physical. If they do not compliment and enhance each other, then there is no real connection and one is merely illusion. If the Gods are not part of the universe they create and nurture, they are probably not there.

You seem to be saying that we can't use anectdotal evidence for anything. If person A said he saw person B kill person C is that not EVIDENCE to be considered but not PROOF. Of course in considering the evidence we also must weigh 'the personal hopes and biases' of person A when considering the testimony.

That's right: you cannot.
No anecdotal evidence is ever taken as-read in court; there must always be confirming physical evidence of some sort.

I would love to see objective evidence and measurements from an anectdotal ghost story but unfortunately that information will never be available to me. So do we simply dismiss all anectdotal stories? Or do we consider them and ALSO weigh the possibility of 'personal hopes and biases' and other human failings in relating stories to others. I say the latter. We must each attempt to be as objective as possible in our own 'court of common sense' when judging what is the most plausible understanding. That is what I, you and everybody else does on any number of subjects.

If you are convinced that it will 'never' be available then I don't understand why you'd pursue it as other than something interesting which remains forever as a quaint mystery and should not be taken seriously. Remember, in this case it was you who said 'never'.

Once again you are confusing the words 'EVIDENCE' and 'PROOF'. Anectdotal stories are evidence but not proof. And secondly, you seem to underestimate my ability to think objectively despite this being an emotionally packed issue. My mind has been honed to a razor's edge (smirks expected). But seriously, I believe the non-believers are often worse than believers in clinging to biases. I really believe I have been objective here.

I am not underestimating you, I am merely reacting to your posts.
So, are we using a scientific definition or a colloquial definition for the word 'evidence'? The colloquial can be twisted to include the fantasies of children, too. I thought we were hopefully discussing factual reality.

Yes, the non-believers are more cynical, but we need not oppose them so much that we lose sight of reality in order to counter them.

Yes, they do. See above.

Colloquial, yes; scientific, no. The difference is of the utmost importance. And I NEVER refer to colloquial evidence.

I am well aware of the handicap you warn against here and agree that is a danger. I've read and searched out a great deal of skeptical writings on many subjects and am quite aware of their arguments. And I believe I have maintained fairness in my considerations.

Well, we agree to disagree then.

How will we ever know with 100% certainity if we won or lost in these controversial areas? Maybe someday in the future 'hard science' will issue PROOFS and DISPROOFS on these things. Until then, all we can have is our personal evolving opinions reached through the best objective evaluations we can muster.

We can make the best assumptions based on the most concrete method available at the time. At this time, the most concrete methods do not agree with your assessment. If you would like to extend your conclusion beyond these methods, that's your purview, but if you are asking public opinions then I would advise against it. By moving beyond and, in that moving on coming to a conclusion which goes against these methods as of right now, are you or are you not swaying into the realm of fantasy? I prefer not to do so, when I can help it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not believe anything is supernatural either in the strict sense of the term. 'Supernatural' is an english word we use in these discussions because we don't have a better word.

Ultimately, if it happens, it's natural. My point is that science in 2012 AD has an incomplete understanding of all that is natural. And that this incompleteness includes spiritual dimensions that some scientists are speculating on but science in general is a long way from wrapping its hands around.

I agree with you; science is just a toddler before nature which is its master.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Religion is a doddering old man before its offspring and master, science.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Religion is a doddering old man before its offspring and master, science.

Not only that, but an old man without the wisdom of knowing he hasn't got it all figured out.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And someone else is cashing his welfare checks!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion is a doddering old man before its offspring and master, science.

I would say that religion is more like science's wacky neighbour who keeps yelling at him whenever he goes to work.