organised religion

NormanPorkinson said:
People follow christianity because their parents followed it, same for Islam, Juadism or Hinduism.
Click to expand...

That's not completely true. People can become religious later in life or even switch religions as they find one which suits them better.
Sure, they may come to learn the religion because of their parents (I did), but once they reach an age of maturity, they can make their own decisions (as I did - Parents are very religious while I'm Agnostic-Humanist).

I still think people follow religion because they need it. They need direction and answers about life.
 
Dolph said:
Many who believe will cite the bible, Torah et al as evidence, because of their belief (or assumption if you prefer) in the provenience of the text.

The idea that evidence has to be measureable, repeatable and confirm to the scientific process is simply another assumption taken a priori, so criticising someone else for making evidence based on a priori beliefs would seem a little hypocritical.

Furthermore, the assumption that scientific explanations proposed actually relate to what happens is definitely an assumption that can only be taken a priori.
Click to expand...


This is the ridiculous philosophical view point of evidence and while it maybe valid and have a point, it's quite useless when you try and quantify or understand things.

For all we know, all this could all be a dream or a computer program etc... - Yes it might be, but I think the here and now and things that are tangible or measureable are the things that we should be trying to understand as they are the things that actually matter. We all might be living in a dream world that is not actually there or is the product of a computer or what every theory you want to use, but as far as we are concerned - the things around us are real, evidence is real and things that can be seen, measured or quantified are important.
 
Tripnologist said:
That's not completely true. People can become religious later in life or even switch religions as they find one which suits them better.
Sure, they may come to learn the religion because of their parents (I did), but once they reach an age of maturity, they can make their own decisions (as I did - Parents are very religious while I'm Agnostic-Humanist).

I still think people follow religion because they need it. They need direction and answers about life.
Click to expand...

Yes people can turn to it but you'll find that most people follow religion because they are indocrinated at a young age. a lot of people will break the spell but not often in Muslim countries or Jewish countries (Israel).
 
NormanPorkinson said:
This is the ridiculous philosophical view point of evidence and while it maybe valid and have a point, it's quite useless when you try and quantify or understand things.

For all we know, all this could all be a dream or a computer program etc... - Yes it might be, but I think the here and now and things that are tangible or measureable are the things that we should be trying to understand as they are the things that actually matter. We all might be living in a dream world that is not actually there or is the product of a computer or what every theory you want to use, but as far as we are concerned - the things around us are real, evidence is real and things that can be seen, measured or quantified are important.
Click to expand...

I never said they weren't important, only that they weren't exclusive and that they depend, somewhere along the line, on assumptions that cannot be made based on evidence. Indeed, this point has been the cause of a great many misdirections within science over the centuries when the 'correct' assumption has been applied and turned out eventually to be completely wrong.

Science seeks predictive accuracy, not objective truth, the whole process and the assumptions are geared around that idea. This does not, in any way, diminish the value of science, apart from for those who try to misuse science as a philosophical absolute.
 
I care about evidence, as in evidence as it is traditionally understood, scientific evidence I suppose. Any other way of explaining things or trying to measure things is in my eyes pointless and not worth looking at. Assumption is important because it leads to the search of evidence but in absence of that evidence, to me, it is worthless and just a theory/guess.
 
NormanPorkinson said:
I care about evidence, as in evidence as it is traditionally understood, scientific evidence I suppose. Any other way of explaining things or trying to measure things is in my eyes pointless and not worth looking at. Assumption is important because it leads to the search of evidence but in absence of that evidence, to me, it is worthless and just a theory/guess.
Click to expand...

I have to ask, what level of scientific education do you have? Most of those educated to degree level or above in the scientific method fully understand the limitations of the approach...
 
NormanPorkinson said:
Yes people can turn to it but you'll find that most people follow religion because they are indocrinated at a young age. a lot of people will break the spell but not often in Muslim countries or Jewish countries (Israel).
Click to expand...

So what makes you British other than being born here?

How is nationality any different to religion?
 
Dolph said:
I have to ask, what level of scientific education do you have? Most of those educated to degree level or above in the scientific method fully understand the limitations of the approach...
Click to expand...

I just don't see the point in thinking something is true unless there is evidence for it. I'm not saying don't sit there and come up with possible theories for why things occur - I'm just saying that these ideas are in fact only theories until proven by evidence. Evidence is the most important part, to me anyway!

I'm not educated to degree level, well I am and beyond, just not in science.
 
Tefal said:
So what makes you British other than being born here?

How is nationality any different to religion?
Click to expand...


You are right - I am British because I was born here.


My point is that, people think that their religion is right and that other religions are wrong and that their way of thinking is right and another way of thinking is wrong and that their holy book is correct and the other persons is wrong, when in fact they only think this because they were born in that era and in that particular country that supports their particular religion. Remember that some people are prepared to kill other people because they are from a different religion!
 
NormanPorkinson said:
I just don't see the point in thinking something is true unless there is evidence for it. I'm not saying don't sit there and come up with possible theories for why things occur - I'm just saying that these ideas are in fact only theories until proven by evidence. Evidence is the most important part, to me anyway!

I'm not educated to degree level, well I am and beyond, just not in science.
Click to expand...

That's just it, science doesn't deal in truth, not in the way you are using it at any rate. It can be pushed into that role through the use of faith, but that doesn't carry any more weight than other faith based beliefs.

Science allows you to make accurate predictions of future data based on previously gathered data and the relationship between it. You can then apply assumptions to produce a model which shows the simplest way by which the observations could have been achieved, which serves to act as the default model underpinning the theory. (Theory, incidentally, has a very different meaning within a scientific context. Saying something is a theory is a very good thing. Before it is demonstrated to be accurate, it is termed a hypothesis).

The way science gathers and processes evidence is all geared to the above process, but the scientific method is in no way an arbiter of truth, nor a catchall method for evidence gathering, because the requirements of prediction lead to collected evidence being disregarded based on assumptions that are key to produce the prediction.

Or more colloquially, 'If it isn't repeatable, it ain't science', which is a great motto, apart from when paired with 'if it isn't science, it ain't true'...
 
Dolph said:
I have to ask, what level of scientific education do you have? Most of those educated to degree level or above in the scientific method fully understand the limitations of the approach...
Click to expand...

That's it, attack his academic abilities because he prefers 'scientific' results :rolleyes:
 
Dolph said:
That's just it, science doesn't deal in truth, not in the way you are using it at any rate. It can be pushed into that role through the use of faith, but that doesn't carry any more weight than other faith based beliefs.

Science allows you to make accurate predictions of future data based on previously gathered data and the relationship between it. You can then apply assumptions to produce a model which shows the simplest way by which the observations could have been achieved, which serves to act as the default model underpinning the theory. (Theory, incidentally, has a very different meaning within a scientific context. Saying something is a theory is a very good thing. Before it is demonstrated to be accurate, it is termed a hypothesis).

The way science gathers and processes evidence is all geared to the above process, but the scientific method is in no way an arbiter of truth, nor a catchall method for evidence gathering, because the requirements of prediction lead to collected evidence being disregarded based on assumptions that are key to produce the prediction.

Or more colloquially, 'If it isn't repeatable, it ain't science', which is a great motto, apart from when paired with 'if it isn't science, it ain't true'...
Click to expand...


Ok, I understand what you are saying. I belive in the scienftic truth then as you defined above. Any other truth is pointless to me.
 
Delvis said:
That's it, attack his academic abilities because he prefers 'scientific' results :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm establishing his understanding of scientific results, which is a relevant point. Claiming you want 'scientific' results without actually understanding the method you want used and how that method relates to the question you want to answer is not exactly a great position to argue from.
 
Dolph said:
I'm establishing his understanding of scientific results, which is a relevant point. Claiming you want 'scientific' results without actually understanding the method you want used and how that method relates to the question you want to answer is not exactly a great position to argue from.
Click to expand...

Why is it not? You don't need a degree to understand results

And that post you made previously, quite frankly is a load of tosh
 
Delvis said:
Why is it not? You don't need a degree to understand results
Click to expand...

You don't need one, but the scientific method is misused far less often by those with science based degrees than those with GCSE or A level science education due to the different teachings you receive between the levels. It's not an absolute rule, but it's a good rule of thumb.

And that post you made previously, quite frankly is a load of tosh
Click to expand...

What a convincing retort, you don't fancy actually expanding it into a meaningful critique, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom