Why is religiosity unscientific?

[questfortruth]

Why is religiosity unscientific? No, God can lift a stone because Atheism is
not a proven idea. Physics must describe the stone and its motion principle.
Hence, to study the invisible God who can take it because Atheism is not a proven idea,
and came after the religious era of Europe.

Songs, books and movies, art exhibitions, ballet, international sport events,
organized education, and the quest for discoveries are an essential part of
humankind's spiritual heritage (spirituality). Spirituality is larger than
Science, but it is the temporary issue of a post-modern scientific community
and not the fallacy of being an inspired scientist or mathematician.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You're conflating religion with spirituality.

Also, there are religions that are not diametrically opposed to science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is religiosity unscientific?

Because it isn't "useful" in the scientific sense,
ie, it makes no testable (falsifiable) predictions.

 

[Altfish]

To be called 'Science' you have to follow the scientific method. This is a method that has been around since about 1700 (IIRC?) consisting of systematic observation, measurement and experiment and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
If religion follows those rules it could call itself science

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, God can lift a stone because Atheism is not a proven idea.

There is no evidence that God can lift a stone, let alone move the mountains.

 

[RabbiO]

There is no evidence that God can lift a stone, let alone move the mountains.

Your response indicates that you have made sense of, or believe you have made sense of, the first paragraph of the OP. Could I impose on you and ask you to rephrase it in English?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is religiosity unscientific?

Simplifying things slightly: because it does not even attempt to connect into the space that science investigates.

I suppose you might propose some sort of experiment on prediction of miracles or something to attempt to change that, but I am not holding my breath.

No, God can lift a stone because Atheism is not a proven idea.

Atheism - and for that matter theism - are "proven" ideas in the sense that both are demonstrably things that exist in our societies.

You could propose that theism is in some sense correct, that there is a god, and that it has the ability to lift stones, I suppose. All of that is speculative at best.

Physics must describe the stone and its motion principle.

Before attempting to say anything about how it moves, you mean? Correct enough.

Hence, to study the invisible God who can take it because Atheism is not a proven idea,
and came after the religious era of Europe.

This has no meaning whatsoever that I can discern. Was it meant to have any meaning?

Songs, books and movies, art exhibitions, ballet, international sport events,
organized education, and the quest for discoveries are an essential part of
humankind's spiritual heritage (spirituality).

Broadly true. Also quite unrelated to matters of atheism and/or theism.

Spirituality is larger than Science,

How do you measure and compare the two? I honestly have no idea.

but it is the temporary issue of a post-modern scientific community and not the fallacy of being an inspired scientist or mathematician.

What is that temporary issue, and what do you mean to say about it? The grammar of this piece of text seems to have collapsed somehow.

 

[Sheldon]

Why is religiosity unscientific?

All scientific ideas must be testable and falsifiable. If an idea is not testable and is unfalsifiable, it is considered unscientific. Science also has to have empirical data to examine.

Atheism is not a proven idea.

Atheism isn't an idea, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Though atheists do have ideas, and of course some ideas would encompass this lack of belief, and thus be atheistic.

 

[wellwisher]

The religious idea of marriage, has many social advantages, based on a wide range of data and metrics. Why hasn't science used the scientific method to prove this and define it as such like a law of science? Why do they ignore the preponderance of the data in favor of social arrangements with higher social costs, lower standards of living, higher crime and drug addiction, and well as other metrics? There is an opportunity for science to lead many social issues by offering the best paths to choose? Why let shady lawyers leads?

How come there are no science studies on the gender nonsense, so we can settle this? Science used to consider this newly defined behavior a type of mental confusion. What is the science data that changed this prognosis? Why is science now silent?

The filtration of Atheism into science has dumbed down science. Atheism has an agenda that cannot give any ground to religion, so when religion is right, such as with marriage data, science will fail to do its job. Science, with its atheism religion, that blinds it to truth, should be defunded of tax payer money, due to separation of church and state.

What about crime statistics and using science to set the record straight. There is too much subjectivity. There is plenty of good data to analyze, using the principles of science. Why isn't Science leading the changes needed to improve these statistics? What is the fear or inhibition? Is it Atheism or Liberalism?

Why let lawyers speak for science? Science appears to be under someone's boot, when it comes to social policies. You need to fight for the data, and not turn a blind eye to the truth. Science should set social policies, scientifically clear, so people can still choose, but have eye on a light house of science, instead of the mirror of science fiction.

Does the value of science break down at social dynamics? If science is willing to take a back seat with social policies, where else is compromised?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why is religiosity unscientific?

Your response indicates that you have made sense of, or believe you have made sense of, the first paragraph of the OP. Could I impose on you and ask you to rephrase it in English?

Unfortunately, questfortruth's first paragraph does not make any sense to me. That is why I am unable to rephrase it. The question is 'What kind of religiosity?" I follow a view in 'Advaita Hinduism" which is 100% scientific, does not differ from science in the least. Buddhism too is by and large scientific. But there are religions which do not go with science.

Atheism also is very old. There were Greek atheists (Thales, Anaximander, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno, Protagoras. Kindly note that my information on Greek philosophy is from Wikipedia only, but among all these, I do not find the mention of God). Atheism is mentioned in RigVeda. People always had doubts about existence of God. Jains and Charvaks did not accept the existence of Gods, Buddha did not say anything on that. Samkhya had its "Nirishvaravada" (Doctrine of non-existence of God) and Vaisheshika of Kanada was like atomism of Leucippus.

 

[F1fan]

Why is religiosity unscientific?

Religiosity is a type of social behavior, not an intellectual endeavor.

No, God can lift a stone because Atheism is
not a proven idea.

Gods are not proven ideas. Atheism just acknowledges this. Fact: atheists actually exist, and they really don't believe gods exist.

Physics must describe the stone and its motion principle.
Hence, to study the invisible God who can take it because Atheism is not a proven idea,
and came after the religious era of Europe.

This is a nonsense statement.

What idea of atheism isn't proven? Atheism is only people not believing any gods exist. These people exist. They really don't believe any gods exist. What isn't proven, except that any gods exist?

Songs, books and movies, art exhibitions, ballet, international sport events,
organized education, and the quest for discoveries are an essential part of
humankind's spiritual heritage (spirituality). Spirituality is larger than
Science, but it is the temporary issue of a post-modern scientific community
and not the fallacy of being an inspired scientist or mathematician.

Sure, art, sport, science, and even some religious practices can be described as a spiritual experience. This doesn't imply any gods exist.

 

[F1fan]

The religious idea of marriage, has many social advantages, based on a wide range of data and metrics.

Don't forget how marriage was used as a commercial and political interaction, with property rights at the core.

There is an opportunity for science to lead many social issues by offering the best paths to choose? Why let shady lawyers leads?

Because evangelical Christians want their divorces, too. About 50% of these Christians get divorced.

How come there are no science studies on the gender nonsense, so we can settle this?

Right, let science explain the nonsense of only two genders.

Science used to consider this newly defined behavior a type of mental confusion.

That is why gays are no longer in this category. Homosexuality isn't a disorder.

What is the science data that changed this prognosis? Why is science now silent?

Science gathers data over time. It takes time. It is ethical, and these days science is rejecting more and more of the obsolete Christian prejudices and being more open minded about how the human brain works.

The filtration of Atheism into science has dumbed down science.

No, science has gotten wiser to eliminate the obsolete and traditional Christian ideas like there being gods. No gods are known to exist, so science has an obligation to ignore the social and cultural beliefs like gods. No doubt this upsets many theists who need the security of science to imply it verifies its ideas of god. Science has ethics, so can't get involved with religious belief.

Atheism has an agenda that cannot give any ground to religion, so when religion is right, such as with marriage data, science will fail to do its job. Science, with its atheism religion, that blinds it to truth, should be defunded of tax payer money, due to separation of church and state.

Religion is irrelevant to science, except when science examines religiosity and religious behavior.

What about crime statistics and using science to set the record straight. There is too much subjectivity. There is plenty of good data to analyze, using the principles of science. Why isn't Science leading the changes needed to improve these statistics? What is the fear or inhibition? Is it Atheism or Liberalism?

It sounds like you want an authoritarian state like what Putin has imposed on Russia. What's wrong with freedom?

Why let lawyers speak for science? Science appears to be under someone's boot, when it comes to social policies. You need to fight for the data, and not turn a blind eye to the truth. Science should set social policies, scientifically clear, so people can still choose, but have eye on a light house of science, instead of the mirror of science fiction.

I have no idea what you mean here. It sounds like you hate science and are unrealistically assuming science has control it doesn't really have.

Does the value of science break down at social dynamics? If science is willing to take a back seat with social policies, where else is compromised?

What social policies? Science tends to be quite open and tolerant when you compare social prejudices. If you notice, science is open to transgender people, unlike many right wing people who also have contempt for science. So look to where the problem of intolerance and ignorance really exists, the right wing of our society.

 

[HonestJoe]

Your response indicates that you have made sense of, or believe you have made sense of, the first paragraph of the OP. Could I impose on you and ask you to rephrase it in English?

It boils down to the usual; "My God exists and atheists are dumb because scientists can't prove me wrong! Waaah!"

Incidentally, I don't believe his English is as poor as is implied since he seems perfectly capable of reading and writing some complex sentences when he needs to. I would suggest he is either a lazy typist or (more likely) is intentionally confusing to help evade the obvious questions and challenges.

 

[sun rise]

Also, there are religions that are not diametrically opposed to science.

And members of all religions that embrace science.

Science is about "how" and religion is about "why". When that is honored, there is no conflict. When some religious people try to shove the "how" into the realm of "why" it fails.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why is religiosity unscientific?

It's based in faith. Science is based in evidence.

God can lift a stone because Atheism is not a proven idea

That's a compelling argument. Does it follow that if atheism becomes a proven idea that God won't be able to lift a stone any longer?

Physics must describe the stone and its motion principle.

No problem. But first, is this a real stone or an imaginary one? If it's a real stone, it can be observed to occupy some location at some time, and it can both affect things around it and be affected by them. Thus, it's spatiotemporal address and material dimensions can be specified - where, when, how big, how heavy, etc..

If it's an imaginary stone, it won't be in space or time, and it will be undetectable even in principle, since being imaginary, it can't interact with matter. In that case, we describe it as nonexistent, since these are the qualities that the nonexistent possess - none.

Spirituality is larger than Science

The word? It's longer.

Spirituality is a psychological state. It doesn't have as size. And science is a method and the collection of ideas generated by it, and so also has no physical dimensions.

I suppose that you mean that spirituality is more important that science. Actually, some of the most spiritual experiences for an atheist come from taking in nature in the light of scientific understanding. This is from Science Saved My Soul. It perfectly describes the spiritual experience. Notice that where others would call out to a god at this point, he doesn't conclude that his rapturous feeling implies a god. The universe can feel sacred without adding gods. One can experience gratitude without a who to be grateful to:

"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more. I can see the invisible microwave glow of the background radiation leftover from the Big Bang. I see stars drifting aimlessly at hundreds of kilometers per second, and the space-time curving around them. I can even see millions of years into the future. That blue twinkle will blow up one day, sterilizing any nearby solar systems in an apocalypse that makes the wrath of human gods seem pitiful by comparison—yet it was from such destruction that I was formed. Stars must die so that I can live. I stepped out of a supernova… And so did you."​

 

[Suave]

Why is religiosity unscientific? No, God can lift a stone because Atheism is
not a proven idea. Physics must describe the stone and its motion principle.
Hence, to study the invisible God who can take it because Atheism is not a proven idea,
and came after the religious era of Europe.

Songs, books and movies, art exhibitions, ballet, international sport events,
organized education, and the quest for discoveries are an essential part of
humankind's spiritual heritage (spirituality). Spirituality is larger than
Science, but it is the temporary issue of a post-modern scientific community
and not the fallacy of being an inspired scientist or mathematician.

All scientific ideas must be testable and falsifiable. If an idea is not testable and is unfalsifiable, it is considered unscientific. Science also has to have empirical data to examine.




Atheism isn't an idea, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Though atheists do have ideas, and of course some ideas would encompass this lack of belief, and thus be atheistic.

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

Reference: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

An anisotropic distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis,

In the study, published September 22,2017 in the journal Science, the researchers gathered over ten years of data taken with the Pierre Auger Observatory to determine whether high-energy cosmic rays were hitting Earth equally from all directions. They are not!

Reference: Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 1018 eV (science.org)

SCIENCE VOL. 357, NO. 6357
OBSERVATION OF A LARGE-SCALE ANISOTROPY IN THE ARRIVAL DIRECTIONS OF COSMIC RAYS ABOVE 8 × 1018 EV
Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 1018 eV
THE PIERRE AUGER COLLABORATION A. AABP. ABREUM. AGLIETTAI. AL SAMARAII. F. M. ALBUQUERQUEI. ALLEKOTTEA. ALMELAJ. ALVAREZ CASTILLO[...]F. ZUCCARELLO

The proof is out there: A Matrix based structured simulated origin for cosmic rays!

Our Universe Is A Simulation - Here's How It's Rendered!

 

[QuestioningMind]

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

Reference: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

An anisotropic distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis,

In the study, published September 22,2017 in the journal Science, the researchers gathered over ten years of data taken with the Pierre Auger Observatory to determine whether high-energy cosmic rays were hitting Earth equally from all directions. They are not!

Reference: Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 1018 eV (science.org)

SCIENCE VOL. 357, NO. 6357
OBSERVATION OF A LARGE-SCALE ANISOTROPY IN THE ARRIVAL DIRECTIONS OF COSMIC RAYS ABOVE 8 × 1018 EV
Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 1018 eV
THE PIERRE AUGER COLLABORATION A. AABP. ABREUM. AGLIETTAI. AL SAMARAII. F. M. ALBUQUERQUEI. ALLEKOTTEA. ALMELAJ. ALVAREZ CASTILLO[...]F. ZUCCARELLO

The proof is out there: A Matrix based structured simulated origin for cosmic rays!

Our Universe Is A Simulation - Here's How It's Rendered!

I've never really understood the value of the 'it's all just a simulation' viewpoint. Lets say for the sake of argument that we all ARE living in a simulated reality. So what? How does that change anything? We're all still stuck here in this simulated reality. The scientific method is still the most reliable means of determining what the rules for this reality are, whether it's a simulated reality or the 'real' reality.

What's the value of accepting this knowledge? Does it in any way enable us to disconnect from the simulation? Does it enable us to control the simulation in some way that we weren't capable of before? Are we pretending that this is like the Matrix and we can somehow choose to ignore the rules of the simulation if we try hard enough?

I could just as easily conclude that I am a disembodied brain in a vat and all of reality is a product of my imagination. But I'd find myself in the exact same situation. My disembodied brain reality would be the only reality I have and I'd be faced to deal with it exactly the same as if everyone and everything was actually real. How would accepting that this is all a simulation change what I consider to be my daily life in any way whatsoever?

 

[Sheldon]

The religious idea of marriage, has many social advantages, based on a wide range of data and metrics. Why hasn't science used the scientific method to prove this and define it as such like a law of science?

Marriage is not a natural phenomenon.

 

[Sheldon]

How come there are no science studies on the gender nonsense, so we can settle this?

What "gender nonsense" are you referring to?

 

[Suave]

I've never really understood the value of the 'it's all just a simulation' viewpoint. Lets say for the sake of argument that we all ARE living in a simulated reality. So what? How does that change anything? We're all still stuck here in this simulated reality. The scientific method is still the most reliable means of determining what the rules for this reality are, whether it's a simulated reality or the 'real' reality.

What's the value of accepting this knowledge? Does it in any way enable us to disconnect from the simulation? Does it enable us to control the simulation in some way that we weren't capable of before? Are we pretending that this is like the Matrix and we can somehow choose to ignore the rules of the simulation if we try hard enough?

I could just as easily conclude that I am a disembodied brain in a vat and all of reality is a product of my imagination. But I'd find myself in the exact same situation. My disembodied brain reality would be the only reality I have and I'd be faced to deal with it exactly the same as if everyone and everything was actually real. How would accepting that this is all a simulation change what I consider to be my daily life in any way whatsoever?

I'd be curious to know who or what might be the simulator or simulators. I have some notion of who or what is beyond the simulation, but unfortunately there is no way for me to prove my hypothetical post human civilization animating us as their simulated ancestors.