Unvarifiable Belief

[tarasan]

Very interesting... Yah, our reality is subjective.

I could think I'm typing this message to you on my laptop while sipping my morning coffee, while in reality I could be strapped to a gurney in a madhouse just mumbling to myself. If I could construct a reality this intricate in my mind independant of what was actually happening, though, that would truly be impressive.

It would be .

 

[alypius]

Scientific claims are claims that are meant to explain the nature of reality you and I share, and scientific claims utilize the scientific method to get to the core of those claims and test if they actually do reflect reality or not. Keep in mind, the scientific method is an all encompassing and universal system. Revisions can be made if better evidence comes into play to get just that much closer to the nature of reality. It's results are consistent, repeatable, and reliable.

Courts of law are establishments utilized to settle disputes such as murder trials or law suits. Their main goal is to settle disputes as fairly as possible according to the laws of the land: to reach a fair judgement. What constitutes "fairness" is often dictated by the judge, and he will tweak the rulings as he sees fit according to those laws of the land. Keep in mind, those laws change from system to system (state to state, country to country, constitution to constitution), and valid and admittable evidence has different standards among those systems. There is no clear cut universal way to settle claims using this method.

Also, while a court case may try to reconstruct events to best reflect reality as much as possible, it can still be swayed according to the jurors, the judge, the lawyers, or the restrictions of the law (evidence can be thrown out at the whim of the judge). Keep in mind, when the times come where they do try to reconstruct events, they do utilize science to help paint that picture. DNA evidence did a LOT to set many people who were unfairly convicted free; many of these people were convicted on eye witness accounts.

Now, which spheres do you think religious claims over lap with? Claims that try to explain the nature of reality, or claims that try to settle disputes? There's a reason why Yahweh is often referred to as "god of the gaps."

While the nature and objective of the law court is a worthy matter for discussion, the question at hand could be phrased thus: is it acceptable that there is at least one field of human endeavour (ie a court of law) which accepts as valid what is given by trustworthy testimony and cannot be externally verified?

 

[SigurdReginson]

While the nature and objective of the law court is a worthy matter for discussion, the question at hand could be phrased thus: is it acceptable that there is at least one field of human endeavour (ie a court of law) which accepts as valid what is given by trustworthy testimony and cannot be externally verified?

In certain, limited situations? Sure.

I mean... I could go over all the things I talked about previously, but you have ignored those... I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, and I'm losing interest.

I get the feeling you are trying to find loopholes in logic rather than having an honest, open discussion. I'm more interested in the latter.

 

[Muffled]

One problem I have with religious beliefs are that they can't be varified via third party accounts in a concrete way. They can't be isolated in a lab, or supernatural aspects of the religion (such as miracles) don't have repeatable results.

That said, there are things I believe that can't be varifed as well. One thing I believe is probably true is that life exists on other planets. There's no real concrete evidence that this is the case; I just think it makes sense, and that it's likely true.

Are there things of a non-supernatural basis that you believe to be likely but can't varify as well?

I believe there is evidence of life on other planets since many of the races on earth claim to come from the stars.

 

[alypius]

In certain, limited situations? Sure.

I mean... I could go over all the things I talked about previously, but you have ignored those... I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, and I'm losing interest.

I get the feeling you are trying to find loopholes in logic rather than having an honest, open discussion. I'm more interested in the latter.

While the scientific method is the go-to method for valid knowledge [providing many benefits to humans], given that we now acknowledge testimony (in certain limited situations) as valid knowledge, could this provide a pathway by which a religious belief could be reasonably and responsibly accepted by a believer who judges positively the testimony presented?

 

[SalixIncendium]

One problem I have with religious beliefs are that they can't be varified via third party accounts in a concrete way. They can't be isolated in a lab, or supernatural aspects of the religion (such as miracles) don't have repeatable results.

That said, there are things I believe that can't be varifed as well. One thing I believe is probably true is that life exists on other planets. There's no real concrete evidence that this is the case; I just think it makes sense, and that it's likely true.

Are there things of a non-supernatural basis that you believe to be likely but can't varify as well?

There are things that are quite mundane that can't be verified. Can you verify that you and I see the color blue the same way? You and I could be seeing entirely different colors but we learned call what we see blue as a child. There is no real concrete evidence we're actually seeing the same color.

What is "supernatural"? (Besides a hit TV series)

 

[SigurdReginson]

While the scientific method is the go-to method for valid knowledge [providing many benefits to humans], given that we now acknowledge testimony (in certain limited situations) as valid knowledge, could this provide a pathway by which a religious belief could be reasonably and responsibly accepted by a believer who judges positively the testimony presented?

Well... Let's see here.

The scientific method isn't just a go to method for valid knowledge: it's a system to test if things are valid or not. That is it's purpose; to get as close to the objective truth as possible.

Witness testimony is simply relaying information. That information doesn't have to be valid or even tested- it only needs to be information. It is not comparable to the scientific method. It serves an entirely different purpose. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

With that said, any information can be deemed to be valid or not by the individual, whether that information is relayed via a scientific journal, or whether that information is relayed via word of mouth. All that's required is that it coincides with a person's epistemological toolset, their experiences, their knowledge, and their biases. Even the most unreasonable thing can be made to seem reasonable and valid if it checks all these boxes for the person.

That's the problem with living a subjective existence. All we can ever understand is within the confines of our own limited understanding. When we hear witness testimony, it is through the subjective lense of the person who gives it according to their own understanding, and it's interpreted by us through our own understanding...

So, if what we care about is objective truth, what system do you recommend we utilize? If we want to make an apple pie, do we use apples or oranges? One is more valid than the other.

 

[SigurdReginson]

There are things that are quite mundane that can't be verified. Can you verify that you and I see the color blue the same way? You and I could be seeing entirely different colors but we learned call what we see blue as a child. There is no real concrete evidence we're actually seeing the same color.

What is "supernatural"? (Besides a hit TV series)

Very true! Though human brains seem similar on the surface, they definitely can be wired in very different ways.

As far as my understanding of what "supernatural" is... Ehhh... That's tough. According to webster:

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universeespecially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Would that also be your understanding of what the word means?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Would that also be your understanding of what the word means?

I have an issue with the term "supernatural" myself. I personally consider everything that can be experienced to be natural.

If we use the first definition, gravity, for instance, could be considered supernatural. We can experience the effects, but not gravity itself.

For the second, "usual" and "normal" are quite subjective terms. What is usual and normal to me might be unusual and abnormal to you.

The third (as well as the first) would render consciousness supernatural. I think few would refer to consciousness as supernatural.

 

[night912]

What is "supernatural"? (Besides a hit TV series)

A book series.

 

[alypius]

Well... Let's see here.

The scientific method isn't just a go to method for valid knowledge: it's a system to test if things are valid or not. That is it's purpose; to get as close to the objective truth as possible.

Witness testimony is simply relaying information. That information doesn't have to be valid or even tested- it only needs to be information. It is not comparable to the scientific method. It serves an entirely different purpose. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

With that said, any information can be deemed to be valid or not by the individual, whether that information is relayed via a scientific journal, or whether that information is relayed via word of mouth. All that's required is that it coincides with a person's epistemological toolset, their experiences, their knowledge, and their biases. Even the most unreasonable thing can be made to seem reasonable and valid if it checks all these boxes for the person.

That's the problem with living a subjective existence. All we can ever understand is within the confines of our own limited understanding. When we hear witness testimony, it is through the subjective lense of the person who gives it according to their own understanding, and it's interpreted by us through our own understanding...

So, if what we care about is objective truth, what system do you recommend we utilize? If we want to make an apple pie, do we use apples or oranges? One is more valid than the other.

While the purpose of the scientific method (and who gets to decide) is unsettled, would it be the case that testimony (in certain limited situations) gives valid knowledge and the scientific method also gives valid knowledge [ie the point at hand is the outcome of the scientific method not its purpose]?

 

[SigurdReginson]

While the purpose of the scientific method (and who gets to decide) is unsettled,

Is it unsettled? I think the process is pretty well established. Who gets to decide what is relavent and what isn't is through the process of peer review. It's not a perfect system, but it's self correcting, and it's efficacy is demonstrable.

would it be the case that testimony (in certain limited situations) gives valid knowledge

No. At least, not that I'm aware of. I can't think of any cases that resolves issues of objective reality. Maybe you can?

As far as I'm aware, court cases only settle disputes.

and the scientific method also gives valid knowledge [ie the point at hand is the outcome of the scientific method not its purpose]?

The results of the scientific method are the product of testing through the scientific method. Even after gaining a status of "theory," anyone can challenge that theory. It is only valid until better information comes along. Sometimes that information bolsters theories, sometimes it kills them.

Please get to your point.