What would happen if all religions were right?

[AxisMundi]

Seven million people (and counting, with more every day) disagree with you!


Peace,

Bruce

Seven million out of nearly 7 billion?

Not exactly something to write home about.

You are using what is called an argumentum ad numerum. It is a logical fallacy that attempts to claim something is true because a number of people believe it is true. However, those 7 million people might be dead wrong.

A significant portion of people once thought the world was flat. Get the point?

 

[AxisMundi]

And science is all in agreement?

When a hypothesis, tests, and the resulting conclusions pass the peer review process and becomes scientific fact?

Certainly.

 

[Riverwolf]

When a hypothesis, tests, and the resulting conclusions pass the peer review process and becomes scientific fact?

Certainly.

As an addendum, it is only the scientific theories which are disputed.

 

[AxisMundi]

As an addendum, it is only the scientific theories which are disputed.

Define "theory" as it pertains to science, please.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Define "theory" as it pertains to science, please.

An accepted, though not concrete, explanation of known facts. Composed of many verifiable hypothesis and observational phenomena.

Theories do not become Facts in the scientific method.
Theories explain Facts.

 

[Riverwolf]

Define "theory" as it pertains to science, please.

Postulations, assertions, etc., that have been reached through observation and critical analysis, however have not, for whatever reason, been adequately tested yet. (I'm not talking about things like evolution, as that has mountains of support and evidence for it; I'm talking about things like dark matter.)

 

[Riverwolf]

An accepted, though not concrete, explanation of known facts. Composed of many verifiable hypothesis and observational phenomena.

Theories do not become Facts in the scientific method.
Theories explain Facts.

Don't theories ever become more concrete as to be accepted as fact? (Such as gravity.)

 

[tumbleweed41]

Postulations, assertions, etc., that have been reached through observation and critical analysis, however have not, for whatever reason, been adequately tested yet. (I'm not talking about things like evolution, as that has mountains of support and evidence for it; I'm talking about things like dark matter.)

That would be hypothesis.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

 

[Riverwolf]

That would be hypothesis.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community a[/color]s a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

Oh. WOOPS!!

Okay, it is the hypothesises that are disputed. ^_^

Thanks.

EDIT: You know, it could be that confusing of hypothesis with theory that causes a lot of people to mistrust science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Don't theories ever become more concrete as to be accepted as fact? (Such as gravity.)

Gravity is a Law.
The Theory of Gravity explains the law, to the best of our knowledge.(And is the basis for the Theory of Relativity)

Just as Evolution is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanism for Evolution, and is adjusted as new knowledge is gained.

 

[Walkntune]

• There is consensus.
• Science deals with the natural world, religion the supernatural.

Oh yeah, like the climategate scandel?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Oh yeah, like the climategate scandel?

The CRU hacking incident?
Are you comparing the e-mails of climatologists Phil Jones and Michael E. Mann, who specifically discussed withholding information on contrary findings with an actual peer reviewed consensus?
A good example of why political influence of science is never a good thing.

 

[AxisMundi]

An accepted, though not concrete, explanation of known facts. Composed of many verifiable hypothesis and observational phenomena.

Theories do not become Facts in the scientific method.
Theories explain Facts.

Thank you. Hoever, one should keep in mind that theories explain, as you said, Facts.

 

[footprints]

Thank you. Hoever, one should keep in mind that theories explain, as you said, Facts.

Theories attempt to explain, via evidence. Theories never explain. Theories can change and often have as our knowledge of the subject increases.

However, as much evidence in forums like this attest, some take this attempt to explain and run with it as though it is gospel.

 

[Circle_One]

If what you say is correct, then the theology of many religions is incorrect; how could they then be said to be "right", even for the religion's own believers?

If I'm taking what you asked correctly, I'm going to assume you mean the theology of those religions that believe all other religions are false, yes?

If that's the case, then the answer is simple: To the believer of a religion that states all other religions are false, or that no other Gods exist, they are completely correct in believing so, as no other religions are right, and no other Gods exist to them. Their God IS the only true God to them. Just as to the next believer, their religion is the only one that is correct and the only God(s) that exists, again, to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I'm taking what you asked correctly, I'm going to assume you mean the theology of those religions that believe all other religions are false, yes?

Yeah... or that only their god exists, or any other claim that's mutually exclusive with some other religion's claim.

If that's the case, then the answer is simple: To the believer of a religion that states all other religions are false, or that no other Gods exist, they are completely correct in believing so, as no other religions are right, and no other Gods exist to them. Their God IS the only true God to them. Just as to the next believer, their religion is the only one that is correct and the only God(s) that exists, again, to them.

How does this work, though? When you talk about things being "true to them", I assume you aren't talking about objective, literal truth, are you?

Or are you getting more at the idea that different beliefs would work for different people?

My thing is just that in any other area of life, even if we don't know the answer to a question with certainty (or at all), if two people come up with opposing and conflicting answers, we can deduce that at least one of those people is wrong. Why wouldn't this work when the questions and answers are religious in nature?

 

[ChristineES]

I have a funny feeling that even if all religions were right, then people would still find differences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have a funny feeling that even if all religions were right, then people would still find differences.

As Emo Phillips put it:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

[Circle_One]

Yeah... or that only their god exists, or any other claim that's mutually exclusive with some other religion's claim.


How does this work, though? When you talk about things being "true to them", I assume you aren't talking about objective, literal truth, are you?

Or are you getting more at the idea that different beliefs would work for different people?

My thing is just that in any other area of life, even if we don't know the answer to a question with certainty (or at all), if two people come up with opposing and conflicting answers, we can deduce that at least one of those people is wrong. Why wouldn't this work when the questions and answers are religious in nature?

Because there is not, nor will there ever be a way to deduce, with absolute certainty that one religion is right over another. It is for this reason that religion lies in the realm of faith, and not science, so my faith tells me that my religion IS absolutely the one true religion for me, and that when I die, I will absolutely be sent in front of Ma'at and be judged.

Another's will tell them they their religion IS their absolute one true religion for them, and that in the end they absolutely will be sent to Summerlands, or to Heaven, or whereever. Each faith-truth lies in the heart of the believer, and not in the hands of science. Therefore all religions are right, to those who believe in them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because there is not, nor will there ever be a way to deduce, with absolute certainty that one religion is right over another.

Fair enough, I suppose, but that doesn't mean they're all true.

IMO, if we're talking about actual factual claims, then we can deduce some things about them... for instance, the claim that the Egyptian gods literally exist and the claim that Jehova is the one and only God are mutually exclusive. While we may not have the information to tell which (if either) is true, we still can recognize that they both can't simultaneously be true.

It is for this reason that religion lies in the realm of faith, and not science, so my faith tells me that my religion IS absolutely the one true religion for me, and that when I die, I will absolutely be sent in front of Ma'at and be judged.

Another's will tell them they their religion IS their absolute one true religion for them, and that in the end they absolutely will be sent to Summerlands, or to Heaven, or whereever. Each faith-truth lies in the heart of the believer, and not in the hands of science. Therefore all religions are right, to those who believe in them.

But that's not all that religions say. While your religion says that you'll be judged by Ma'at, someone else's religion will say that you'll be consigned to Hell, someone else's will say that you'll be sent to the Terrestrial Kingdom of Heaven, and another's will say that you will be reincarnated without any judgement at all.

If your religion is right, even just "right for you", then many other religions are wrong, because they do make factual claims about you.