5 ms·

I don't want to get into a flamewar, but potential 'religious truth' generally lacks falsifiability. Certainly there could definitely be true things that the re

by fleitz 16y ago

I don't want to get into a flamewar, but potential 'religious truth' generally lacks falsifiability. Certainly there could definitely be true things that the religious say but it doesn't really promote a method of thinking that leads us to knowing things that aren't false about the world. In the method of 'religious truths' everyone is right and everyone is wrong, there is no way to sort out the true from the false.

lukeschlather 16y ago
That's why claiming potential religious truths are "clearly false" is a clear marker of weak thinking.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  Saying something is "clearly false" doesn't mean you claim to know everything - you just see there is no evidence for their conclusion. Is Scientology clearly false or should we say they have some good points? If the latter, we might as well explore every fairy tale that comes by - or we could follow real evidence to where it leads us.
  - mfukar 16y ago
    Where I come from, if you say "A is clearly false" means there is evidence to support it. I have never heard of any evidence regarding spiritual or religious beliefs; maybe the OP has some. Until he presents some, I'll dismiss his claims as 'clearly false'.
    - nickpinkston 16y ago
      Where I come from, we consider all hypotheses null until significant proof has been shown to back it up. I've seen none of this proof - let alone the scientific method being used. Therefore, it's clearly false - not "100% I can prove it's a duck-false", but it walks, talks and acts like one.
      - mfukar 16y ago
        Are you arguing, or are you angry-agreeing with me? The end result is the same: the OP's claim is bogus until proven otherwise.
        nickpinkston 16y ago
        No anger at all - I'm merely stating what I'm sure you follow every day: If we're going to be pragmatic about exploring the truth (i.e. not wasting our limited time) we should explore claims with more proof than "I believe this to be true". When someone says, "clearly false", it should be (and in this case is) referencing the absence of any proof at all for the extraordinary claims. In this case, people who defend religion have a burden of proof here. Perhaps more precise wording would be: "arbitrary and totally unverified". This is why I brought up fairy tales. They are just as arbitrary and unprovable. Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? If not, why does religion get a pass - because so many believe it? Let's not have science by vote of the masses. After all, the scientific consensus is that religion is false ;-)
        lukeschlather 16y ago
        > Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? Why not? I find it quite astonishing how often starting with verifiably false assumptions leads to worthwhile results. Your tower of reason is a decent construction. I find it a nice place to visit, but sometimes I prefer the woods. A mind too well-ordered misses the faults in its own assumptions.
        nickpinkston 16y ago
        "Why not?" - because we only have so much time to make use of. If you'd prefer to live as ignorance is bliss ("the woods") - that's a valid choice, but valid doesn't mean it's consistent with the truth (a.k.a. what science is trying to get close to). To find fault with the mind - one must constantly question their assumptions - in this article: religion.
loewenskind 16y ago
Religion is not a scientific subject, but a philosophical one. You can't prove "taste" either but most people know "bad taste" when they see it.
- roel_v 16y ago
  You're making several assumptions and leaps in your reasoning here, though. If one were to accept that aesthetics is objective (which you seems to be implying?) then it may just be that we haven't found the epistemological framework to quantify it. Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the religious people I talk to seem to say so and use it explicitly as an argument (you do, too, I think) to parry demands for falsifiability. So then your comparison goes out of the window.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      OK, but the second part of your sentence said that in that respect it is like aesthetics, which I don't agree with.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago

by fleitz 16y ago

lukeschlather 16y ago

That's why claiming potential religious truths are "clearly false" is a clear marker of weak thinking.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nickpinkston 16y ago
Saying something is "clearly false" doesn't mean you claim to know everything - you just see there is no evidence for their conclusion. Is Scientology clearly false or should we say they have some good points? If the latter, we might as well explore every fairy tale that comes by - or we could follow real evidence to where it leads us.
- mfukar 16y ago
  Where I come from, if you say "A is clearly false" means there is evidence to support it. I have never heard of any evidence regarding spiritual or religious beliefs; maybe the OP has some. Until he presents some, I'll dismiss his claims as 'clearly false'.
  - nickpinkston 16y ago
    Where I come from, we consider all hypotheses null until significant proof has been shown to back it up. I've seen none of this proof - let alone the scientific method being used. Therefore, it's clearly false - not "100% I can prove it's a duck-false", but it walks, talks and acts like one.
    - mfukar 16y ago
      Are you arguing, or are you angry-agreeing with me? The end result is the same: the OP's claim is bogus until proven otherwise.
      - nickpinkston 16y ago
        No anger at all - I'm merely stating what I'm sure you follow every day: If we're going to be pragmatic about exploring the truth (i.e. not wasting our limited time) we should explore claims with more proof than "I believe this to be true". When someone says, "clearly false", it should be (and in this case is) referencing the absence of any proof at all for the extraordinary claims. In this case, people who defend religion have a burden of proof here. Perhaps more precise wording would be: "arbitrary and totally unverified". This is why I brought up fairy tales. They are just as arbitrary and unprovable. Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? If not, why does religion get a pass - because so many believe it? Let's not have science by vote of the masses. After all, the scientific consensus is that religion is false ;-)
        lukeschlather 16y ago
        > Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? Why not? I find it quite astonishing how often starting with verifiably false assumptions leads to worthwhile results. Your tower of reason is a decent construction. I find it a nice place to visit, but sometimes I prefer the woods. A mind too well-ordered misses the faults in its own assumptions.
        nickpinkston 16y ago
        "Why not?" - because we only have so much time to make use of. If you'd prefer to live as ignorance is bliss ("the woods") - that's a valid choice, but valid doesn't mean it's consistent with the truth (a.k.a. what science is trying to get close to). To find fault with the mind - one must constantly question their assumptions - in this article: religion.

loewenskind 16y ago

Religion is not a scientific subject, but a philosophical one. You can't prove "taste" either but most people know "bad taste" when they see it.

roel_v 16y ago
You're making several assumptions and leaps in your reasoning here, though. If one were to accept that aesthetics is objective (which you seems to be implying?) then it may just be that we haven't found the epistemological framework to quantify it. Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the religious people I talk to seem to say so and use it explicitly as an argument (you do, too, I think) to parry demands for falsifiability. So then your comparison goes out of the window.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    OK, but the second part of your sentence said that in that respect it is like aesthetics, which I don't agree with.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago