How do theists "know" what is real?

[abaddon]

Nobody refuted this;
I can be absolutely certain about some matter notwithstanding your inability to know what I know.

One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river.
"Look at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really enjoying themselves."
"You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you cannot know that they are enjoying themselves."

"And you are not me," said Chuang Tzu.

http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html

Ok.

So?

That no one else can know what you know is the problem.

What's the point of asserting a knowledge you cannot share with others? Do you think people should believe you? Do you think people shouldn't disbelieve you? If you believe one of those is the right stance that others should take about it, can you explain that stance is right?

 

[Learner]

Here’s the thing that your post ignores, though:
Science HAS A MECHANISM for detecting fraud. It may not be cheap, but it is easy. Repeat the same experiment. Look at the results. If you can’t repeat the experiment, you get to write a paper saying so. And someone else tries also. If they can’t get the same results, doing the same thing that the claimaints say they did, we can demonstrate that the science claim was fraud.

This works and is used all the time in science. As was noted above, scientists clamor to be the one to falsify a bold claim that seems fishy. That’s why you know about these.

Yes there are machanisms; unfortunately .....it doesn't seem to quite DETER individuals from having fraudulent motives, even when found out later on.

Religion has no mechanism for detecting fraud. Science does.

So again, how do you decide that you have determined something is true in religion? You cannot rely on the experiences (repeated experiments) of others. You religionists routinely discount the experiences of non-religionists as wrong, but you have no way of actually determining it’s a fraudelent religious claim that that does not make your own faith suuspect by the same logic.

Religious people use those mechanisms for fraud too, being as human as anyone else in the modern world. It's not unique to the secular group of people you know?. With centuries of biblical studies, more so today, I 'd be using the same line .."it's the best we currently have!"

Meanwhile, science can take your claims, and see if they are repeatable and reliable, and determine that they are not.
(Indeed your religion discourages this, “don’t test god! He gets pissed off!”)

Some things are un-testable. BUT the bible does encourages people to investigate and test all things in what ever means available, encouraging people to be truthful.

 

[Rhea]

Yes there are machanisms; unfortunately .....it doesn't seem to quite DETER individuals from having fraudulent motives, even when found out later on.

I think you misspelled “PREVENT,”. Because the mechanism to detect fraud absolutely does deter it.. There is much much MUCH less scientific fraud today than there was during, for example, the days of snake-oil sales. New mechanisms, indeed, have grown with the times. Not only do you have more readily acessible peer reviewed journals, you have access to the actual data for re-analysis. You also have regulations that say, “if you haven’t gone through these steps, you can be sued for even claiming your product attributes publicly!

As I said with data accessibility, if a researcher were to say, “you can’t see my data for cold fusion!” The mechanism of repeatability (and their inability to clear the hurdle) will destroy their reputations, and we have enough worldwide communication that it is very difficult to just pop up in another town and sell the same snake oil.

The mechanism absolutely deters fraud. It does not eliminate it, but it serves to uncover it and thus deter it. I am surprised you would make such an easily refutable claim in writing.


Religious people do not use those mechanisms on their religion. (I know hundreds of religious scientists and engineers - none of them use their science and engineering skills to assess their religion.). The “centuries of biblical studies” do not perform reliability and repeatability experiments on the basic truth of their religion. You do not have people testing miracles using the scientific method (If you did this, you could earn a million dollars for it. No one has ever won the prize.)

Religious people use those mechanisms for fraud too, being as human as anyone else in the modern world. It's not unique to the secular group of people you know?. With centuries of biblical studies, more so today, I 'd be using the same line .."it's the best we currently have!"

Meanwhile, science can take your claims, and see if they are repeatable and reliable, and determine that they are not.
(Indeed your religion discourages this, “don’t test god! He gets pissed off!”)

You claim

Some things are un-testable. BUT the bible does encourages people to investigate and test all things in what ever means available, encouraging people to be truthful.

and yet, this obviously does not prevent Liars For Christ (does it even deter them?) as they spew the pablum of the “look how my faith caused me to save the other child from drowning” stories and “Look how the girl in Columbine died for expressing her faith” lies. The odd thing to the secularists is when we point out that the story is false (the book “She Said Yes,” is based on the lie that the girl who died said “yes she believes in Jesus” and was killed for it, when in truth, her friend is the one who said yes and she was not shot), when we point this out, religionists invariably reply, “well, it doesn’t matter if it’s true, it is a powerful story!”

Indeed it brings to mind a quote from a minister (this was in the very early days of the internet, so I can no longer find it) who pleaded with Christians to NOT pass on that chain letter, that e-mail that meme because all it did was prove to the world that Christians will believe anything without caring if it is true. Judging by the incredibly prolific sharing of false news by Christians, I would judge that nothing has deterred them.

I think it’s a very valid test, in fact, of whether religion “has a mechanism” to discover truth. If it had one, wouldn’t all the Christians know it unambiguously?. In science, all the scientists are taught the same method. Some will flout it, but they ALL know it. In religion, not only do most religionists NOT know this mechanism you claim, they “know” an opposite one that discourages testing all things.


The evidence is before us. We watch someone commit fraud in the scientific community. They get checked, they get called out, they get punished or even ejected from their field.

In religion? It doesn’t even rise to “not so much,” but rather falls somewhere between “not at all,” and “wut?”

 

[steve_bank]

When backed into a corner quote scripture.

You'll note my previous post was not quoting from scripture, even though I wasn't backed into a corner. It is an odd statement because the only ones that keep bringing/ quoting scripture more than we do it seems to me, in a variety of topic discussions, is you (plural).

eye for eye tooth for tooth

 

[skepticalbip]

Meanwhile, science can take your claims, and see if they are repeatable and reliable, and determine that they are not.
(Indeed your religion discourages this, “don’t test god! He gets pissed off!”)

Some things are un-testable. BUT the bible does encourages people to investigate and test all things in what ever means available, encouraging people to be truthful.

There are many claims made by Christians that are testable. Some have been tested but, when the tests show them to be false, the test results are ignored and the original claim continues to be made.

 

[steve_bank]

'the bible tells you' says it all.

There is a thread down the list on 613 dictates taken out of the OT. Do you do all of them or do you pick and choose what makes sense to you personally? Sane with Leviticus.

 

[atrib]

"SCIENCE: a way of finding things out and then making them work. ... So does RELIGION, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it's wrong." — Terry Pratchett, Wings

Love it.

"Science asks questions that may not be answered. Religion gives answers that may not be questioned."

Test all things (character of inviduals) both religious and non-religious.


An excerpt from link below:

"As scientists, we like to think that science is a bastion of virtue, untouched by science fraud.....

Unfortunately, there are a number of more sinister cases, where scientists deliberately fabricated results, usually for personal fame. With the advent of corporate and politically funded research grants, poor results are becoming more dictated by policy than by scientific infallibility.""

Scientific falsification has been around in the scientific community since the inception of the idea of scientific experimentation.
https://explorable.com/scientific-falsification




6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...en-scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/

Excerpt:
Several people posted comments about our story that noted one name was missing from the Nobel roster: Rosalind Franklin, a British biophysicist who also studied DNA. Her data were critical to Crick and Watson's work. But it turns out that Franklin would not have been eligible for the prize—she had passed away four years before Watson, Crick, and Wilkins received the prize, and the Nobel is never awarded posthumously.

The scientific process emphasizes peer review and independent testing because we understand and acknowledge that humans can be biased, and that our reasoning and observations can be flawed. This is a feature, not a bug. The same cannot be said about religious beliefs operating on fiat, arbitrary pronouncements that cannot be questioned, let alone tested. Would you rather fly on an airplane that gets inspected regularly by trained technicians, operating on scientific guidelines provided by the manufacturer, or on one that forgoes all safety inspections but gets blessed by a priest every morning?

Your argument is hypocritical and petty, and you curse the very people and processes that allow you to live a life of relative comfort and safety as a member of a technologically advanced society. What an ingrate!

 

[Rhea]

Test all things (character of inviduals) both religious and non-religious.

Please remember that the main point here is that science does this pretty well, and religion does it not at all.
But you seem to be blithely claiming that this post adds to the reputation of religion somehow?
Unironically?

An excerpt from link below:

"As scientists, we like to think that science is a bastion of virtue, untouched by science fraud.....

Unfortunately, there are a number of more sinister cases, where scientists deliberately fabricated results, usually for personal fame. With the advent of corporate and politically funded research grants, poor results are becoming more dictated by policy than by scientific infallibility.""


Scientific falsification has been around in the scientific community since the inception of the idea of scientific experimentation.

FORTUNATELY, though, the scientific community has mechanisms to minimise this. And those mechanisms are getting better as technology helps support them. It gets harder and harder, thanks to the continuous advances of science, to falsify science.

It also, it should be said, gets harder and harder, thanks to the continuous advances of science, to falsify reality via religion.

On the contrary, however, religion has never done a single thing to adance mechanisms to check itself.

6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism

LOLz, a religionist trying to diss science by concern trolling about the treatment of women by science.
Dude. Log in your eye. Mote in the eye of science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

LOLz, a religionist trying to diss science by concern trolling about the treatment of women by science.
Dude. Log in your eye. Mote in the eye of science.

Women in the U.S. had to fight for the better part of a century in order to be constitutionally franchised. Religion and religiously justified white supremacism were the main obstacles to overcome with the southern states being the most opposed to women voting. If it's a log it's the size of Manhattan.

 

[Learner]

The scientific process emphasizes peer review and independent testing because we understand and acknowledge that humans can be biased, and that our reasoning and observations can be flawed. This is a feature, not a bug. The same cannot be said about religious beliefs operating on fiat, arbitrary pronouncements that cannot be questioned, let alone tested. Would you rather fly on an airplane that gets inspected regularly by trained technicians, operating on scientific guidelines provided by the manufacturer, or on one that forgoes all safety inspections but gets blessed by a priest every morning?

Quite often I find like Rhea's somewhat "argument" a tad flawed in perspective, when regarding religion and NOT the religious people especially today. As if to think science is "exclusive" to you secularlsts. As the methods you describe above being tools ... this method has NO opinions or feelings on the matter of Religion.. just as it wouldn't be "opposed" either to written world history. You both act as if it were the case.

IF I gave the link to the scientists who were also believers that contributed vastly to science, you (plural) will need another argument to post imo.

Your argument is hypocritical and petty, and you curse the very people and processes that allow you to live a life of relative comfort and safety as a member of a technologically advanced society. What an ingrate

A FALSE statement!

Believers and non-believers born into the world of technology mostly (if not all) use it, as part of our lives, like using a drill today to do a bit of carpentry, an ancient skill method to build and make things with wood.

 

[Learner]

Please remember that the main point here is that science does this pretty well, and religion does it not at all.
But you seem to be blithely claiming that this post adds to the reputation of religion somehow?
Unironically?

Yes of course and what of people? Where has there EVER been a claim from theists which is a wierd thing to even suggest, that these are "opposing beliefs." It may seem like a good argument but really... it's not. Now with individuals who actually deny science, well .... you may have a case there. It doesn't seem to be the one I'm claiming i.e. denying science.

FORTUNATELY, though, the scientific community has mechanisms to minimise this. And those mechanisms are getting better as technology helps support them. It gets harder and harder, thanks to the continuous advances of science, to falsify science.

It also, it should be said, gets harder and harder, thanks to the continuous advances of science, to falsify reality via religion.

On the contrary, however, religion has never done a single thing to adance mechanisms to check itself.

6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism

LOLz, a religionist trying to diss science by concern trolling about the treatment of women by science.
Dude. Log in your eye. Mote in the eye of science.

Let's note the line in bold. IS this really true? I think by now this seems clear imo - methodically and tactically in error of use, and judgment.

BTW It's an lol for me too ...especially regarding you, because of your social-justice tone regarding women and religion in some of your posts I've seen.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Scientists and secularists most absolutely, positively have feelings and opinions regarding their work, same as a religious claimant. But religious claimants don't scrutinize and test their religious "truth" claims. Huge difference. What's real to a scientist or a secularists is therefore of a completely different subject.

Religious people also use scientific reasoning simply because that's what has evolved and been selected for. Their religious claims only tag along because the preponderance of their behavior is secular and scientific. This secular, scientific, survival behavior is actually the only thing that allows their religious silliness to survive. The overly religious ones who thought they could pray away danger, enemies and the competition are long gone. Natural selection has seen to that.

 

[James Brown]

Some things are un-testable.

That's true. But I'll wager that a religious person's list of "untestable things" is much different (and much larger) than the list of a skeptic.

BUT the bible does encourages people to investigate and test all things in what ever means available, encouraging people to be truthful.

Would you care to give an example of a religious principle that you tested? Please include your methodology. I'd hate to think that "test all things" is a mere platitude akin to "always do the right thing."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question any sincerely religious person needs to ask themselves is "why am I engaging in so much secular behavior?" It doesn't make religious sense. It certainly makes secular sense but definitely not religious sense. After all, my religious beliefs must command more power and authority than anything secular. So what gives?

Why do my prayers not slake my hunger? Why do I have to spend time obtaining, preparing and consuming food? Why don't my prayers get it done? Why do I spend so much time on a job getting money? Why doesn't my god provide for my needs? Why do I have to put gas in my car? Why do I have to walk to the closet? Why do I have to pay those utility bills? Why don't I use god to get all this done so I can spend more time praising, thanking and venerating my god? It really doesn't make sense, certainly doesn't make religious sense.

It's very much like the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The religious answer is that a god did it. The secular answer is that the question doesn't make sense because the implied premise is false.

So trying to answer the question of why a religious person spends so much time living a a secular existence should be foremost on the mind of any religious person. But it isn't.

 

[abaddon]

So trying to answer the question of why a religious person spends so much time living a a secular existence should be foremost on the mind of any religious person. But it isn't.

But they're not living a secular existence if they've imbued their lives (and by extension all the activities in their lives) with religious values.

Your post relies on an absolute sense of what "secular" and "religious" mean. Apparently for you, "secular" is all mundane things in earthly existence, and "religious" is entirely wish-fulfillment and otherworldliness. Eating, working, et al, are religious if the person views it as provided by god, or as an opportunity to practice religious virtues.

 

[Rhea]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. I have some questions...

Please remember that the main point here is that science does this pretty well, and religion does it not at all.
But you seem to be blithely claiming that this post adds to the reputation of religion somehow?
Unironically?

Yes of course and what of people?

What of what people? What do you mean here?

Where has there EVER been a claim from theists which is a wierd thing to even suggest, that these are "opposing beliefs."

What opposing beliefs - do you mean science and religion? Science isn’t a belief. It’s a method. And religion specifically says they approve of an opposing method - faith. There are two methods, faith and science. My point was that my friends who are BOTH scientists AND religious, they never use the scientific method to examine their faith. Ever. They do not run experiments, they do not test hypotheses. They believe in their religion without using the scientific method to do so. IN fact, they will quote that their religion (their god) has expressly asked to NOT be tested. And so they don’t.

Let me repeat that:

Science is not a belief. It is a method.


And I know a lot of scientists and engineers who are religious, so of course being religious is not opposing to being a scientist. And you will see all of those people compartmentalize the belief from the method. Why do they do that? Why do they trust the scientific method to tell them which cars are safe, and why they can trust a compuer’s results, and that their phone will work, and that the plane won’t fall out of the sky, but they don’t trust it to help them know if their god is real?

Well, that is something that may be related to the dissonance of wanting to believe and knowing that the scientific method is pretty reliable in detecting repeatability and reliability, which might harm their faith. And they don’t want to know what science says about their beliefs. So they never use their knowledge of the scientific method on their religion. I’m speculating on the cause here, but I can tell you what they do, and that is they don’t use their science to examine their religion.

It may seem like a good argument but really... it's not. Now with individuals who actually deny science, well .... you may have a case there. It doesn't seem to be the one I'm claiming i.e. denying science.

What do you mean? Are you denying science or not denying science?
Either way - Science has a mechanism to check for fraud.
Religion does not have a mechanism to check for fraud.

LOLz, a religionist trying to diss science by concern trolling about the treatment of women by science.
Dude. Log in your eye. Mote in the eye of science.

Let's note the line in bold. IS this really true? I think by now this seems clear imo - methodically and tactically in error of use, and judgment.

I do not know what this sentence means.

BTW It's an lol for me too ...especially regarding you, because of your social-justice tone regarding women and religion in some of your posts I've seen.

I do not know what you are implying or trying to imply.

Why does my pointing out that religion is unkind to women create an LOL when you reflect that I am a social justice advocate for women?
Seems more like a “sky is blue” kind of statement to me. What’s funny about that?

 

[atrib]

The scientific process emphasizes peer review and independent testing because we understand and acknowledge that humans can be biased, and that our reasoning and observations can be flawed. This is a feature, not a bug. The same cannot be said about religious beliefs operating on fiat, arbitrary pronouncements that cannot be questioned, let alone tested. Would you rather fly on an airplane that gets inspected regularly by trained technicians, operating on scientific guidelines provided by the manufacturer, or on one that forgoes all safety inspections but gets blessed by a priest every morning?

Quite often I find like Rhea's somewhat "argument" a tad flawed in perspective, when regarding religion and NOT the religious people especially today. As if to think science is "exclusive" to you secularlsts. As the methods you describe above being tools ... this method has NO opinions or feelings on the matter of Religion.. just as it wouldn't be "opposed" either to written world history. You both act as if it were the case.

Science is a tool, and the process is subject to errors and biases. Scientists recognize and acknowledge this fact, which is why there is such an emphasis on peer review and independent testing. Peer review and testing is a good thing since it allows us to independently verify scientific claims. Yes or no?

Most religious traditions are authoritarian and provide no mechanism for testing and peer review. This is a bad thing, since the religious claims cannot be verified. Yes or no?

I am trying to make you understand what I am said in my previous post, since you don't seem to get it. Please try to follow along instead of going off on irrelevant and unrelated tangents. I did not make the claim that science is confined to secularists (whatever that means), or that the process can have opinions (again, whatever that means). You simply made up some strawman arguments.

The point of discussion is to communicate with other people and to share ideas. You have to read, understand and then respond to things that other people are saying. Otherwise you are only talking to yourself.

IF I gave the link to the scientists who were also believers that contributed vastly to science, you (plural) will need another argument to post imo.

What would this demonstrate? And what does this have to do with your original claim (that the scientific process is not perfect), or my response?

Your argument is hypocritical and petty, and you curse the very people and processes that allow you to live a life of relative comfort and safety as a member of a technologically advanced society. What an ingrate

A FALSE statement!

Believers and non-believers born into the world of technology mostly (if not all) use it, as part of our lives, like using a drill today to do a bit of carpentry, an ancient skill method to build and make things with wood.

What does this have to do with your original claim, that the scientific process is broken and cannot be trusted? Isn't that what you were saying?

 

[atrib]

Yes of course and what of people? Where has there EVER been a claim from theists which is a wierd thing to even suggest, that these are "opposing beliefs." It may seem like a good argument but really... it's not. Now with individuals who actually deny science, well .... you may have a case there. It doesn't seem to be the one I'm claiming i.e. denying science.

You are a science denier. You have claimed in the past that the Big Bang theory is flawed, that the universe not expanding, on more than one occasion, and then run away when asked to defend your position, on more than one occasion. And this is just one example.

What were you trying to say in your post about fraud and sexism in science? What was your intention, if not to diss the process?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So trying to answer the question of why a religious person spends so much time living a a secular existence should be foremost on the mind of any religious person. But it isn't.

But they're not living a secular existence if they've imbued their lives (and by extension all the activities in their lives) with religious values.

Your post relies on an absolute sense of what "secular" and "religious" mean. Apparently for you, "secular" is all mundane things in earthly existence, and "religious" is entirely wish-fulfillment and otherworldliness. Eating, working, et al, are religious if the person views it as provided by god, or as an opportunity to practice religious virtues.

To an observer we would be doing exactly the same non-religious things.

 

[DBT]

What is real can bite you on the arse regardless of what you believe.