Is it possible to prove the validity of a certain belief system over another?

[Savon]

In reference to the many various debate topics in the PG concerning religious doctrine and the validity of said doctrine, I have always had one major thought about it all. Regardless of whether a person is a monotheist, atheist, agnostic, etc is it possible to logically prove the validity of a certain belief system over another belief system?

I tend to dislike having religious debates simply because you begin to get into an area that is totally based on faith rather than factual information. When debating topics such as politics and world events one has many various factual resources at their disposal to help support their reasoning and points, but can the same be said for topics about religion?

Is it possible for any of the debates between theists and atheists to come to a logical conclusion? I feel as though it is very awkward to debate under circumstances that ultimately are not based in any actual fact besides the biased doctrines of religious which cannot truly be used as a factual source due to these texts applying only to the followers of the respective faith.

If were to create a religion right now on the spot stating that Lavos from Crono Trigger is the true creator of the universe along with my own religious doctrine supporting my religion, could anybody logically disprove my religion any more than they can disprove a more established religion such as Christianity or Islam?
The same applies to atheism as well.

If the answer is no, is there even a point at all in debating religious topics? They seem to be illogical battles that will end in an inevitable stalemate that ultimately boils down to faith

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

If you are comparing one theistic religion over another, there is really no way to make one more "valid." Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.

Debating over whether a god exists or not is a different matter. I can tell you that theism is not ENTIRELY faith-based.

 

[1048576]

Sure. The best belief system doesn't assert things which are unfalsifiable. The better belief system is the one with the lowest number of such assertions.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I don't agree.

At religion's core, there is the unfalsifiable claim that a higher power exists. Everything else is just founded upon that.

You're basically saying that the religion with the shorter book is the better.

 

[ballin4life]

In reference to the many various debate topics in the PG concerning religious doctrine and the validity of said doctrine, I have always had one major thought about it all. Regardless of whether a person is a monotheist, atheist, agnostic, etc is it possible to logically prove the validity of a certain belief system over another belief system?

Yes. You might believe 2+2=5, but I can prove you wrong.

You are basically asking about truth. I don't think there is any provable truth to be found besides mathematics, so I'd say to no to your question in areas besides math.

I tend to dislike having religious debates simply because you begin to get into an area that is totally based on faith rather than factual information. When debating topics such as politics and world events one has many various factual resources at their disposal to help support their reasoning and points, but can the same be said for topics about religion?

PAGING DRE. DRE, TO THE THREAD PLEASE.

Sure. The best belief system doesn't assert things which are unfalsifiable. The better belief system is the one with the lowest number of such assertions.

You believe the above statement, right?

I'm pretty sure that's unfalsifiable.

Regardless, nearly every belief system contains falsifiable beliefs (e.g. the world exists).

 

[Nicholas1024]

Define how you are using the word proof. If by "proof", you mean "Mathematically, 100% true, and no chance whatsoever you're wrong", then no, we can't really prove anything outside of mathematics, as everything we conclude aside from logic itself is based on our senses, which can be deceived. However, if by "proof" you mean "Beyond a reasonable doubt" (like in court), then I would argue that you can. For example, suppose that religion X claims that hitler is god, and will return to destroy the earth Jan 6, 2011. If Jan 6 comes and goes, but the earth is still here, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude that religion X is false.

 

[Dre89]

I don't agree.

At religion's core, there is the unfalsifiable claim that a higher power exists. Everything else is just founded upon that.

You're basically saying that the religion with the shorter book is the better.

Belief in a higher deity is not faith-based at all. There are plenty of people who believe in a deity for rational reasons, some of them don't subscribe to any religion at all, so faith has nothing to do with it.

And yes you can compare religions based on which one is more logical. Reason is an objective standard of measurement.

For example, the belief that I can run through walls like a ghost is far less logical than the belief that I need to consume food to survive. The same applies for religions.

People who say "religion is just about faith" are the ones who haven't read any theistic literature, or haven't debated anyone educated in theism.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I didn't say it was faith-based. I said it was an unfalsifiable claim. If you want to argue over whether or not the statement "God exists" can be proven wrong, then by all means, make your case.

 

[Dre89]

Do you consider the claim "God exists" unfalsifiable?

If you don't, then why is religion unfalsifiable?

If you do think "God exists" is unfalsifiable, then so is science, because they both stem from the same line of reasoning.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I would like to know what line of reasoning you are talking about.

 

[Dre89]

Arguments surrounding God entail philosophy.

Science entails empirical methodology, but we apply science based off the philosophical assumption that it concludes truths. Science didn't prove that science concludes truths, philosophical reasoning, or assumptions did.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Sorry if I'm being oblivious, but I don't see how "God exists" being unfalsifiable has any bearing on whether or not science can conclude truths.

 

[Dre89]

I'm saying that if you believe the God question can't be concluded by logic, and that it's pointless to debate, then science is in the same boat, as they both stem from philosophy.

 

[1048576]

Science is demonstrable, and it's pinned on the back of observable data. I can show you that water is 2 Hydrogens and an Oxygen, every time. (Well, maybe not me personally.)

 

[Dre89]

Science is falsifiable within its own framework, the fact that framework is valid is not falsifiable empirically, for that would be circular. It's a philosophical assumption.

 

[ballin4life]

Science uses inductive reasoning.

The thing is that inductive reasoning is not proof. Just because something happened every time in the past, that doesn't mean it will happen every time in the future. To use a simple example - in 2007 I might have said "Every US president has been 100% white, therefore all future US presidents will be 100% white". That is valid inductive reasoning, but it obviously became false when a guy that's only 50% white got elected.

The assumption behind science is that inductive reasoning can be used - that the universe is consistent - that the future will resemble the past.

Now we might assume inductive reasoning works because it's always worked before, but that's using inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning.

 

[GwJ]

Is it just me or does Dre make science sound like a single set of ideas like a religion?

 

[Dre89]

Ballin4death I really liked that post.

Gw- Science is a logical process which applies empirical methodology, that's what it is fundamentally.

And theology is at least as deep as science, if not deeper.

You speak of religion as if you still think the Christian God is meant to be a guy in the clouds with a beard.

 

[GwJ]

Yeah......No I don't Dre.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

On what basis do you claim that theology is deeper than science?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

On what basis do you claim that theology is deeper than science?

Most likely because humans have come up with a LOT of stuff to do while worshiping (If we are factoring theology that does include every single faith, as we are not talking about any god/gods/goddess in particular.) and I do mean a LOT!

 

[Dre89]

The practical or applied side of theology is not necessarily deeper, but the intellectual side is immense. I don't think you guys grasp how immense theology is, which is probably why you think so lowly of religion, as opposed to someone like myself, who disagrees with it but still respects it nonetheless.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Why do you think that the intellectual thought behind theology is "deeper" than that of science. I probably don't "grasp" it, as you say, but I am curious.

 

[ballin4life]

Unless you define "deeper" then this is pretty meaningless.

By the standard of "more people producing more results" I think science got that on lock. The existence of the internet, airplanes, electricity, medicine etc are due to science.

 

[Reaver197]

I don't know what methodology theology even has other than "somehow always arrive at thinking a cosmic, magical space man exists and did everything, no matter what".

It just seems like an eclectic collection of various arguments and whimsical sayings that are only connected to each other by virtue of the conclusions they reach, and not by the soundness of their logic.

At least that's how it's always struck me.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Reaver
I don't know what methodology atheism (or I guess anti-theism) even has other than "somehow always arrive at thinking macro evolution exists and created all life, no matter what."

As you can see, that sort of statement can apply to just about anything. Anyway, the way you validate/invalidate religions would be by looking at the falsifiable claims they make, and checking those against the evidence. (For example, investigate some of the prophecies that the Bible's made sometime. Aside from those regarding end times, they've all been fulfilled.)

 

[Mike]

@Reaver
I don't know what methodology atheism (or I guess anti-theism) even has other than "somehow always arrive at thinking macro evolution exists and created all life, no matter what."

As you can see, that sort of statement can apply to just about anything. Anyway, the way you validate/invalidate religions would be by looking at the falsifiable claims they make, and checking those against the evidence. (For example, investigate some of the prophecies that the Bible's made sometime. Aside from those regarding end times, they've all been fulfilled.)

You are completely wrong about almost everything you said.
1. Atheism is not a methodology and has nothing to do with evolution.
2. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.
3. Religions are invalid because they are UNfalsifiable.

I'm not even going to touch on the bible.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'm used to the strict "atheism = There is no God" definition. If you want to substitute anti-theism there, then fine. Anyway, evolution is one of the primary building blocks for that, as without it you have no explanation for life's development. I know it doesn't explain the origin of life (I guess that would be abo-genesis, strictly), but it's still necessary in the anti-theist mindest. And although the idea of God in general may be unfalsifiable, the claims and prophecies Christianity makes are most definitely falsifiable.

 

[Mike]

No you are wrong. Atheism and evolution are two very distinct things and have no logical connection with each other.

You just admitted that the idea of god is unfalsifiable - why believe in an unfalsifiable idea?

By the way, there are lots of failed Christian prophecies. Here is a link to a list of them: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

 

[Nicholas1024]

No you are wrong. Atheism and evolution are two very distinct things and have no logical connection with each other.

Distinct? Maybe. No connection? Get out of here. Can you honestly claim that you'd be an atheist without the theory of evolution? Without that, there's no way to explain the diversity of life.

You just admitted that the idea of god is unfalsifiable - why believe in an unfalsifiable idea?

Just because something's unfalsifiable doesn't mean it can't be true.

By the way, there are lots of failed Christian prophecies. Here is a link to a list of them: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

Look, I'm hardly an expert in Biblical prophecy, but even I can see some inconsistencies in that "list". Let's take a single one as an example.

In Isaiah 7:1-7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies.

"And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass."


Yet it did come to pass. His enemies did harm him.


"Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers."

The way the site words it, it sounds like God promised the king that he wouldn't be harmed, and then let him get slaughtered. However, these passages are from two different books (Isaiah and 2 Chronicles), and have been put in the wrong order! What happened is, Syria and Israel made an alliance and attacked Judah, and were initially successful. (God was allowing them to succeed because of Judah's present wickedness.) However, then God decided to relent, and made the prophecy in the first set of verses quoted. And indeed, it was fulfilled, as Assyria soon swooped in, and obliterated both of them.


Here's another one.

Similarly, in Exodus 23:31 God promises to give the Israelites all the land from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and from the Euphrates River to "the desert." Historically this never happened.

This is just a blatant lie, check out a map of David and Solomon's kingdom sometime. The south end reaches down to the red sea, the west edge is the Mediterranean, the east edge is the desert, and the river is in the middle of it.

One last example, the prophecies about egypt... there's no deadline on when this will happen. It's quite possible that it refers to end times (and if I recall correctly, Ezekiel does prophecy a significant bit about end times.) Have you ever read some of the destruction prophesied in Revelation?

 

[GwJ]

I dunno about anyone else, but i was an atheist before even thinking about life's origin.

 

[Dre89]

Some pretty bold statements about theology for people who haven't read that much, if any of it.

Scientific claims are falsifiable within the scientific framework, but science itself is not falsifiable. I guess according to you guys we should drop science too then.

 

[ballin4life]

Distinct? Maybe. No connection? Get out of here. Can you honestly claim that you'd be an atheist without the theory of evolution? Without that, there's no way to explain the diversity of life.

Huh? Is this the "God of the gaps" argument again? Just because you don't have an explanation for something doesn't mean that we should automatically attribute it to God.

Just because something's unfalsifiable doesn't mean it can't be true.

Sure.

What do you think about russell's teapot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Some pretty bold statements about theology for people who haven't read that much, if any of it.

Scientific claims are falsifiable within the scientific framework, but science itself is not falsifiable. I guess according to you guys we should drop science too then.

Well science is, ya know, actually pretty darn useful. I don't think science is the ultimate truth or even fully justified philosophically but it's led to some great increases in our standard of living.

 

[Dre89]

And?

That still doesn't justify uneducated criticism of theology, or the fact that science is still technically unfalsifiable.

 

[ballin4life]

science = unfalsifiable but seems to be useful

theology = unfalsifiable but not useful (indeed it leads to conflict)

 

[Dre89]

You forget the millions of lives lost that only could have come about due to developments in science.

People talk about lives taken in the name of religion, but forget all the good things that come from it- universities, hospitals and nurses, social contract theory, largest exporter of charity in the world etc. In fact, many scientific developments came from theists, with educations that could only be received in religious institutions at the time.

It makes me wonder, has science saved more lives than it has taken?

 

[GwJ]

Doesn't matter. Even if it did, it wouldn't matter. Stop treating science as a doctrine similar to a religion.

As for the good it causes, that doesn't matter either. On my way to the Eagle boy scout rank, I did plenty of fundraisers. Does that throw the boy scout ideaology in with the mix of religion?

 

[Mike]

Distinct? Maybe. No connection? Get out of here. Can you honestly claim that you'd be an atheist without the theory of evolution? Without that, there's no way to explain the diversity of life.

Yes, I would! The absence of an adequate explanation does not mean "god diddit". There is always the honest "I don't know".

Just because something's unfalsifiable doesn't mean it can't be true.

This doesn't answer the question. There are many things that are unfalsifiable that you do not believe in.

I didn't want this to turn into a bible debate, as it's completely unnecessary to understand my point. I could attempt to counter your explanations and I could list more prophecies, but I doubt it will get anywhere; however, if you think the existence of just one failed prophecy will convince you, you can say so and I won't object to continuing the topic.

@Dre: What do you mean science in unfalsifiable? That statement doesn't even make sense!

 

[ballin4life]

You forget the millions of lives lost that only could have come about due to developments in science.

Heh. Except that without science half of those people would have died before age 10 and post-infancy life expectancy would have been like 25 anyway.

People find ways to kill each other no matter what the level of technology is anyway.

Overall I think it's pretty clear that science has been a net positive.

People talk about lives taken in the name of religion, but forget all the good things that come from it- universities, hospitals and nurses, social contract theory, largest exporter of charity in the world etc.

Universities, hospitals and nurses seem to come way more from science than religion. They all have existed without religious influence.

Social contract theory is a bad thing so I wouldn't want to count that

In fact, many scientific developments came from theists, with educations that could only be received in religious institutions at the time.

Well that's because 99.999999% of everyone was a theist. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I also don't see why their educations "could ONLY" be from religious institutions. Religious institutions had a lot of power and nearly everyone was religious, so it makes sense that the schools would be religious. I don't see why they absolutely had to be religious though.

It makes me wonder, has science saved more lives than it has taken?

This question isn't really well defined because of the lack of counterfactuals (what does it mean to "save a life" or "take a life" when we have no idea how different everything would be without science?)

Anyway are you really saying that science is a net negative for people?

 

[Dre89]

Universities in western society were based on Christian monasteries. Hopsitals were a Catholic invention, the first nurses were nuns.

No I'm not saying science is a net negative, I'm saying people are setting double standards when disucssing the negatives of religion.