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

[ballin4life]

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.

Are you saying that universities and hospitals would not exist without religion?

Your examples seem like coincidences that happened because 99% of people were Christian and that was a huge part of their lives.

 

[Savon]

I am going to have to agree with ballin on that point.

Hospitals might be a Catholic invention, but did the religion itself play a direct role in the hospitals creation? If the Ipod was invented by a Jewish person would you call it a direct product of the Jewish religion? The science is what made things such as hospitals successful and relevant, not the faith of the people who began them.

 

[rvkevin]

I have news for you, nobody cares what who coined the term the building is called or whether it was designed after a monastery. The only thing that matters is the quality of the medicine in hospitals and the quality of education taught inside universities. Science leads to improvements in both of these areas. Without it, hospitals would just be a place where people go to die, or worse, increase their chances of dying. Without the ability to test treatments according to the scientific method, it is impossible to filter out ineffective treatments in order to find what really works. Also, advances in others fields of science, such as physics, have crucially aided the medical field via increases in technology. Science, not religion, is responsible for the progress of the field of medicine. As for universities, the same holds true for them as does hospitals.

 

[Reaver197]

How is science unfalsifiable?

"Science" as a body of knowledge is definitely falsifiable. However, if you're using "science" in terms of the scientific method, using the word "unfalsifiable" makes no sense. "Unfalsifiable" is only something that can be applied to statements that could ostensibly be proven to be true or false, though in this case the statement is set up in such a way that you cannot ever prove it true or false.

Methods aren't statements, they're not something that can either be "true" or "false". You can't say something like "Logic is true" or "Mathematics is false". It makes literally no sense to talk about them in that fashion, since they aren't statements or observations that have truth values in of themselves. What you can do, though, is show whether a methodology is sound or not in terms of the statements it produces. Seen in that light, mathematics, logic, and science are very sound and useful indeed from the statements, predictions, and observations they have made.

Theology in of itself is not something that can be described as "unfalsifiable" either. The statements and claims it makes can be though.

Also, the argument that religion somehow be credited for the creation of such things such as the university, or the hospital, is an empty one to me. Most humans who have ever lived had religious convictions of one sort or another, by nature of how our psychology tends to have a propensity towards making such cognitive, in my opinion, mistakes.

I think it would be hard to prove that such institutions would've come about irregardless of which ever religion happened to be in vogue at a region or time. Did religions help shape the institutions as we know them in their early days? Undoubtedly. Were they directly responsible for them though? I don't think so. Taking care of the sick and elderly, and trying to educate people are hardly ideas or propensities that religion formed, instilled, or created. The inevitable institutionalization of these things would no doubt be paired with whatever else was conveniently institutionalized already.

 

[Dre89]

I never said science hadn't contributed good to society, you guys need to stop pidgeon-holeing all your opposition. My point was it's a double standard to refer to negative impacts of religion, ignoring the positive ones, then ignore the negative imapcts of science.

How is science unfalsifiable?

"Science" as a body of knowledge is definitely falsifiable. However, if you're using "science" in terms of the scientific method, using the word "unfalsifiable" makes no sense. "Unfalsifiable" is only something that can be applied to statements that could ostensibly be proven to be true or false, though in this case the statement is set up in such a way that you cannot ever prove it true or false.

Methods aren't statements, they're not something that can either be "true" or "false". You can't say something like "Logic is true" or "Mathematics is false". It makes literally no sense to talk about them in that fashion, since they aren't statements or observations that have truth values in of themselves. What you can do, though, is show whether a methodology is sound or not in terms of the statements it produces. Seen in that light, mathematics, logic, and science are very sound and useful indeed from the statements, predictions, and observations they have made.

Theology in of itself is not something that can be described as "unfalsifiable" either. The statements and claims it makes can be though.
.

The claim "science concludes truths" is falsifiable through logic. That's why we hold science in such high esteem, because we have logically deduced that it does in fact conclude truths, or at least probable facts. Science, maths and logic are only sound on the ground that we assume that they conclude truths, an assumption which is not verifiable within their respective methodologies themselves. One possible exception would be logic, because to say "logic can't deduce truths" is self-refuting, for the statement requires itself to be logically valid to have an merit, yet it's attacking logic.

 

[Reaver197]

I never said science hadn't contributed good to society, you guys need to stop pidgeon-holeing all your opposition. My point was it's a double standard to refer to negative impacts of religion, ignoring the positive ones, then ignore the negative imapcts of science.

I don't think people doubt that religion has done good things, or that bad things have come from scientific discovery. I just think that the people feel that, overall, the bad that has been caused by religion outweighs whatever good it can claim to have, and that the good that has come from scientific discovery generally outweighs the bad that comes from it. The arguments that you've put forth for the good that religion has done seems tepid in comparison to either the good done by science, or the bad done by religion.

Anyway, the thing about science is that it seeks to uncover the true and most accurate operation of the universe (or multiverse, which ever it may be) and the things that inhabits it. It's a knowledge seeking quest, and seeking knowledge isn't inherently a good or bad thing (though, I guess in general, it is favorable to seek knowledge than not to). It's just what people decide to do with that knowledge that leads to either good or bad results. No one did bad things because science somehow dictated them, or forced or persuaded their hand to, that was their own prerogative and initiative with the knowledge gained from science.

However, in religion's case, it's pretty much a built in feature that one has to act a certain prescribed way upon reception of certain information or in entering upon some particular scenario. In that way, negative consequences from religious actions tends to be a bit more explicitly connected to the religion, rather than the more indirect influence of science on more negative actions and consequences. That's not to say that scientists don't decide to do bad things, or convince themselves to do bad things for scientific development though.

The claim "science concludes truths" is falsifiable through logic. That's why we hold science in such high esteem, because we have logically deduced that it does in fact conclude truths, or at least probable facts. Science, maths and logic are only sound on the ground that we assume that they conclude truths, an assumption which is not verifiable within their respective methodologies themselves. One possible exception would be logic, because to say "logic can't deduce truths" is self-refuting, for the statement requires itself to be logically valid to have an merit, yet it's attacking logic.

Of which all of these are inherently subject to the "methodology", if one could call it that, of the neural activity of the brain. Leading to such weird loops as "our experiences help inform how to interpret our experiences". Have you ever read Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter? I think you may enjoy reading that, though it does have some forays into mathematics and computer science. Other than that, I'm not really sure if you're trying to argue something, so much as musing out loud as I think you are.

 

[Dre89]

Someone PM'd me a wiki link about Godel which I tried to get my head around.

 

[GwJ]

Who is godel?

 

[ballin4life]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=godel&l=1

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'm going to make my post as simple as possible, since there really is a simple answer to this whole thing:

It is impossible to prove the validity of one religion over another. It's also currently impossible to prove the existence of God, Bhudda, Allah, etc.. On the same token, it's impossible to disprove their existence as well. I believe (and have believed for a long time now) that religion is more of a lifestyle and can help people get through various trials in life with their moral teachings and what-not. The problem, is that many religions tend to disagree with one another, and some take their disagreements to the extreme and thus wage wars with one another, effectively contradicting the very teaching their religions dictate.

Also, the fact that more and more religions keep surfacing as time goes on makes things even harder, as A Pimp Named Slickback has stated concerning the Spaghetti Monster or the Pink Unicorn. People hear about the newer religions and brush them off now as nothing, but I'm willing to bet 1000-2000 years down the road, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Invisible Pink Unicorn could be accepted as a legit religion. Take Christianity: it's literally about 2000 years old, and we know about it and accept it as a religion. Who is to say back when it was established, it wasn't brushed off and sneered at by people who had just heard of this new thing called "Christianity"?

The only way anyone can find out, is through death. If it were possible to talk to the dead, we could get an insight on what is exactly truth and what is myth, effectively changing the entire mindest and view on death and the afterlife of humanity and perhaps giving us peace or chaos depending on what truth is revealed. Sadly, there's no possible way to do so.

 

[Dre89]

I'm sorry Sol but I found that to be a very unsophisticated post.

Firstly, the analogy between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Christianity is very poor. They aren't comparable; Christianity has an ocean of philosophy and theology, as well as alleged historical evidence and religious experience. The FSM has literally no argument behind it at all. That's actually why atheists apply the FSM in analogies, because there is no argument behind it (and is why the FSM analogy is so poor).

Your claim that it is impossible to prove one religion over another makes a number of fallacies. Firstly, it assumes all religions are enitrely about faith (if this were the case, your claim would be correct), but they're not, they can be assessed and emasured by reason. Even the claim "this religion is all about faith" is a claim that has a truth/logic value.

Secondly, the surpressed premise in your post is that only empirical evidence can conclude truths. This is a fallacy, because you can't use empirical evidence to prove that empirical methodology deduces truth, our application of empirical methodology stems from our philosophical assumption that empirical methodology concludes truth. We have used several types of logic other than that of the empirical kind to ddeduce truths, so I don't see why the God/religion issue is any different.

No hard feelings Sol, it's just that your post imitated the thoughts of those who usually haven't read up on this sort of stuff.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I don't see how you can deduce anything without empirical methodology.

Please enlighten me what truths you are talking about.

 

[ballin4life]

e^(i*(pi)) + 1 = 0

true. no empirical methodology.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how you can deduce anything without empirical methodology.

Please enlighten me what truths you are talking about.

That empirical methodology deduces truth.

Conclude that without applying a circular logical fallacy.

 

[GwJ]

We observe that all the time. I know what you're talking about though and i dont quite think that's correct if you say it spawns circular reasoning.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

That empirical methodology deduces truth.

Conclude that without applying a circular logical fallacy.

You completely missed the point.

What truths CAN you conclude without empirical methodology? (other than mathematical truths, as ballin pointed out)

This isn't the first time I've asked you this question. I would like a straight answer from you since you continually reference these "types of logic other than that of the empirical kind to ddeduce truths," yet I have never seen you give an example.

I am not making an argument. I am genuinely curious.

What truths can you conclude without empirical methodology?

 

[ballin4life]

If you say "You can't conclude truth without empirical methodology" then this is a (supposedly) true statement that was not concluded empirically.

 

[GwJ]

But that was observed and deduced because of that observation. Is there a word for what that is?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

ballin but then how would you be able to prove that statement to be true?

 

[ballin4life]

I say you can't. I don't think you can prove anything true besides Math.

 

[GwJ]

I do agree with you there.

For every conclusion we've ever reached without math, there's always another explanation that, while not as probable, is still POSSIBLE.

Then, of course, we use the whole "beyond reasonable doubt" thing when determining which one we'll believe to be true.

 

[Dre89]

Ballin4death is right.

Gw- Observation doesn't conclude that observation concludes truth. We observe the world, but to valdiate it, we have to assume that our observation correlates to reality, which is itself not verified by such observation, it's just a metaphysical assumption.

Mike, when I said "that empirical methodology concludes truth", that is something concluded without empirical methodology.

Ethical values, whether you believe them to exist or not, are concluded without EM.

Positive atheism or naturalism, the claim that the first cause is a natural or material being, cannot be concluded empirically. They will claim that they have observed what they believe to be the first cause, but empirical methodology can't show that there was no God before that.

Just to name a few.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Again you didn't answer my question. I am beginning to think you are simply avoiding it.

How can you conclude anything without empirical reasoning? You have only provided things that cannot be dealt with empirically.

 

[Dre89]

....

You're the only person in this thread not getting it, everyone else understands I've already answered this....

Again, the fact that empirical methodology deduces truth was something we have concluded without empirical methodology.

I don't get why you're still asking this, I showed in my previous post we conclude plenty of things without empirical methodology.

Just to make sure...who thinks I have/haven't answered his question?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

whoops I definitely typo'd there. I meant to ask "HOW can you deduce anything without empirical methodology?"

You said it yourself, these are assumptions that we make to make sense of our world. It is useless to argue against them, as you have.

My point is that, as humans, empirical methodology IS the only way to conclude truths about our world. Some things cannot be observed, as you have demonstrated, but then what? Disregarding mathematics, we have no other ways to deduce truths. So until it can be observed or its results measured, there is no way for us to know.

This is why I keep asking the question. Is there a way for humans to deduce truths that doesn't involve empirical methodology?

 

[Dre89]

They're all deduced though.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

and I ask you how so?

what other methods of deduction do we have at our disposal?

 

[Dre89]

Philosophical, which is how we concluded empirical deduction.

Historical, human testimony etc.

You posts imply that you think I have an issue with empirical deduction. I don't, I just know it's not the only way we conclude truths, and it is self refuting to claim otherwise.

 

[Reaver197]

The thing about empirical deduction is that it seems to have a bit of a feedback loop into itself. The very act of employing empiricism feeds back into our inherent empirical system (the brain) which can even adjust itself in how it employs that empiricism in the first place.

It seems to me that the depth and breadth of which empirical methodology suffuses the very basic operations of our brains (or, rather, I guess, empirical methodology is essentially formulated from how the operations of our brains occur). Given the plasticity and sheer complexity of our neural activities, I'm beginning wonder if it's selling empirical methodology short to just say "it's just another methodology", or that there is even any other type of methodology we intrinsically use and depend upon so.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Philosophical, which is how we concluded empirical deduction.

Historical, human testimony etc.

You posts imply that you think I have an issue with empirical deduction. I don't, I just know it's not the only way we conclude truths, and it is self refuting to claim otherwise.

The moment you conclude anything with philosophy, then it is no longer philosophy. You have only assumed that empirical deductions correlate to reality. You have not proved a single thing.

You can't prove anything with philosophy, no more than I can hit something with my hammer of air.

Historical and testimony are all empirical, as they are observations and accounts of what happened.

 

[Dre89]

Reaver, it's not just another methodology, it's a valid methodology that we're structured to apply.

Pimp- Then nothing, not even EM can be proven true. Empirical claims are only falsifiable within an empirical framework, but the framework itself cannot be proven.

But that's not saying anything amazing EM, only that it provides an non validated framework where claims are falsifiable. But seeing as no framework is validated, frameworks are relative. I can have a faith based framework where things exist if I have faith in their existence.

That's the consequence of you're reasoning, which ironically according to you can't be proven either.

 

[Ballistics]

If christianity says the world was created in 7 days, and science has proven that it actually took millions of years, then christianity is invalidated

Therefore Science > Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOLAGYmUQV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PT90dAA49Q

 

[_Keno_]

But Ballistics, the Bible is metaphorical every time it contradicts reality.

 

[Ballistics]

LOL what a nice cop out!

 

[GwJ]

But god's just testing you is all.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Reaver, it's not just another methodology, it's a valid methodology that we're structured to apply.

Pimp- Then nothing, not even EM can be proven true. Empirical claims are only falsifiable within an empirical framework, but the framework itself cannot be proven.

But that's not saying anything amazing EM, only that it provides an non validated framework where claims are falsifiable. But seeing as no framework is validated, frameworks are relative. I can have a faith based framework where things exist if I have faith in their existence.

That's the consequence of you're reasoning, which ironically according to you can't be proven either.

You have a point.

But if you are not arguing that empirical deduction is invalid, then I see no reason why it should not be accepted to be true.

That said, I argue that it is not only true, but the only way that humans can deduce truths.

Since there are no other ways to find truth in this world, humans have no choice but to rely on empirical deduction to find truth.

Therefore, if it cannot be deduced from empirical methodology, there is no reason to believe it is true, because we have no way of testing it.


If you wish to argue with my premise that there is no other way of finding truth in this world, then I welcome you to do so. Please name for me another way humans can deduce anything that can be proved true.

 

[Dre89]

The Bible was never interpretted literally until modern times, as a result of scientism.

For example, Augustine asserts that God may have planted potencies in thew orld that develop over years into complete beings. That was 1500 years before Darwin. That's just one example.

Pimp- My point was not to say that EM is invalid, nor that in areas where we apply EM there are alternate and/or superior methodologies, but that to say EM is the only way we deduce truth is ironic and self-refuting.

What I contest is when people require empirical evidence for non-empirical issues (such as God, who is not falsifiable, despite not being empirical), or claim that issues that cannot have empirical evidence presented for them are meaningless to discuss.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Even if it's ironic, it is still the ONLY way we can deduce "truth."

The problem is that God can be observed, directly or indirectly. The fact that he has not been empirically observed (unless you count the Bible?) means that there is no way we can even deduce his existence, let alone deduce his characteristics.

 

[Dre89]

Even if it's ironic, it is still the ONLY way we can deduce "truth."

See this is ironic in that you've asserted a truth which is not empirical. A statement about empirical validity cannot be verified by EM for that is circular.

The problem is that God can be observed, directly or indirectly. The fact that he has not been empirically observed (unless you count the Bible?) means that there is no way we can even deduce his existence, let alone deduce his characteristics.

But we deduce the existence of things that we do not observe, such as mathematical and ethical (or lack thereof in the latter case) truths.

You're also placing unfair demands on God. God, by His nature, does not exist to be perceived or observed, because He precedes the existence of that which perceive and observe.

So if God were to be perceived or observed, it would be because He makes an active effort to be perceived, such as through miracles etc. but His default nature would obviously not be perceivable.

Secondly, the argument for God is from necessity, and you don't always need to observe something to infer it's necessity. For example, you don't need to see the painter to know that the painting was painting. You can infer from what the nature of a painting that a painter painted it, even if you don't observe the painter. You may disagree that God is necessary (but that's a complex debate), but it's certainly not necessary that we perceive Him to rationally posit His existence.

 

[GwJ]

Dre, don't use the painting anology, it sucks. Maybe it'd work if the universe were tailored for human survival, but it's not.

As for EM and EM being the only way to deduce truths, it is true we have math also, but that's basically it. Ethics aren't truths, they're agreed upon by a whole. The only thing circular I've read in this thread is your posts. It seems like you're whole purpose in the thread is to tell everyone EM is not a truth-finding method.