Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palace of Kubla Khan and bovine worshippers
    Posts
    3,011
    Post Thanks / Like

    Valid Evidence Types

    Last year I conducted a poll here regarding valid forms of evidence for gaining knowledge about our universe/existence. Of the 10 people who participated, the answers were overwhelming in most areas:

    Valid Forms of Evidence For Gaining Knowledge About Our Universe/Existence

    Biological/Physical (chemical, archaelogical, etc.) 10100.00%
    Historical (records, accounts, testimonials) 10100.00%
    Philosophical (logic, reason) 10100.00%
    Statistical (probability) 10100.00%
    Sociological (behavior, trends) 10100.00%
    Empirical (experience, intuitiveness) 990.00%
    Spiritual/Supernatural (religious, paranormal, etc.) 770.00%
    Any others? (specify) 220.00%


    chadn737 gave a nice overview of different types of evidence.
    Science wants to know "How?"

    History wants to know "What and When?"

    (There can be an interesting mix of both science and History in such fields as Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology, etc.)

    Statistics seeks to answer the question "Can it happen and how likely is it to happen?" It also seeks to answer the question "Is it reliable?" (such as in applications to analyzing data acquired in scientific experiments.

    Philosophy and Religions want to know "Why?" (This is a fundamentally different question then "How?")

    Empirical evidence allows us to leap forward in ways that we never could without it. Take a computer, which lacks true understanding and can only analyze the world in a very limited and very linear fashion. Now compare that to a human, such as Einstein, whose intuition let him create a picture of time and space that was not at all evident from the data at the time. It was his imagination that carried him beyond to a more accurate picture than that given by that of Newton.
    Ignoring any one of these tools/methods is to blind yourself to reality, to limit yourself in such a way that you can only answer a certain question and so understand only a limited amount of the cast knowledge our universe and existence has to offer.
    Couple that assessment with this one by the National Academy of Sciences, of all sources:
    Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

    http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
    Curious, isn't it? Even the NAS recognizes that there are other valid methods outside the realm of science for acquiring knowledge and gaining understanding. Something many of the atheists here either aren't grasping or are unwilling to admit.

    So once we establish some accepted frame of reference, I'll use this thread as a springboard for another thread giving examples of valid evidence for a supreme being or creator.

    Any objections so far? Any revisions need to be made? Are we clear for take-off?
    anything could be an illusion and we wouldn't know the difference... proof schmoof...

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu Moo View Post
    Curious, isn't it? Even the NAS recognizes that there are other valid methods outside the realm of science for acquiring knowledge and gaining understanding. Something many of the atheists here either aren't grasping or are unwilling to admit.

    So once we establish some accepted frame of reference, I'll use this thread as a springboard for another thread giving examples of valid evidence for a supreme being or creator.

    Any objections so far? Any revisions need to be made? Are we clear for take-off?
    Sorry to say it, but I'm one of those atheists who is "unwilling to admit" that religious experience is a valid form of acquiring knowledge. However, since I'm confident that that wouldn't be a major part of your evidence for a creator (It'd be circular reasoning), you've got a green light from me.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Here's my philosophy: ALL evidence is valid until it is proved invalid, therefore, religion based evidence is as valid as Atheistic evidence. Beliefs are valid. Feelings and emotions are valid. Everything is valid until you prove it isn't.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad quoted by Xanadu Moo View Post
    Philosophy and Religions want to know "Why?" (This is a fundamentally different question then "How?")
    I hear this all the time, and there is so little truth to it. Of course they want to know "why?". Science wants to know "why?" too. But the fact is, religion has never told us why, how, when or what. It has never told us anything or contributed tangibly to any sort of human progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad quoted by Xanadu Moo
    Ignoring any one of these tools/methods is to blind yourself to reality, to limit yourself in such a way that you can only answer a certain question and so understand only a limited amount of the cast knowledge our universe and existence has to offer.
    It has yet to be demonstrated that there is any path to truth about reality other than analyzing reality itself. I'd gladly "bind myself" to reason and empiricism - the only force that has ever offered humanity anything in the way of progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu
    Empirical evidence allows us to leap forward in ways that we never could without it. Take a computer, which lacks true understanding and can only analyze the world in a very limited and very linear fashion. Now compare that to a human, such as Einstein, whose intuition let him create a picture of time and space that was not at all evident from the data at the time. It was his imagination that carried him beyond to a more accurate picture than that given by that of Newton.
    Imagination is where it all starts in science too, Xan; it's called formulating a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is different from a truth; a hypothesis has no validity, factual or otherwise

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu
    Couple that assessment with this one by the National Academy of Sciences, of all sources:
    Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

    http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/
    Curious, isn't it? Even the NAS recognizes that there are other valid methods outside the realm of science for acquiring knowledge and gaining understanding. Something many of the atheists here either aren't grasping or are unwilling to admit.
    They said it, but can they demonstrate it? You know how weak this appeal to authority is without evidence, Xan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu
    Any objections so far? Any revisions need to be made? Are we clear for take-off?
    Well, there wasn't really an argument made in this thread (merely claims about ways of acquiring knowledge), but very well, let us continue.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop View Post
    Here's my philosophy: ALL evidence is valid until it is proved invalid, therefore, religion based evidence is as valid as Atheistic evidence. Beliefs are valid. Feelings and emotions are valid. Everything is valid until you prove it isn't.
    Really? Then how can you prove invalid my feeling that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the world 16 minutes ago?
    Last edited by starcreator; September 27th, 2007 at 04:42 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop View Post
    Here's my philosophy: ALL evidence is valid until it is proved invalid, therefore, religion based evidence is as valid as Atheistic evidence. Beliefs are valid. Feelings and emotions are valid. Everything is valid until you prove it isn't.
    This entails contradictions: you would believe mutually exclusive things because they are "valid until you prove [they] aren't". Furthermore, you would believe (and act on) absurdities (e.g. "Do not go outside or the sun god will strike you down"). Which, obviously, you don't.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    This entails contradictions: you would believe mutually exclusive things because they are "valid until you prove [they] aren't". Furthermore, you would believe (and act on) absurdities (e.g. "Do not go outside or the sun god will strike you down"). Which, obviously, you don't.
    You obviously don't know me very well - I believe many things and do not always act on those beliefs, such as I believe I am a good person and yet I don't always act like a good person. The evidence is there.

    Evidence is evidence and all evidence is valid or it wouldn't be evidence.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  7. #7
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop View Post
    Evidence is evidence and all evidence is valid or it wouldn't be evidence.
    You couldn't be more correct in this statement.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palace of Kubla Khan and bovine worshippers
    Posts
    3,011
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by starcreator
    I'd gladly "blind myself" to reason and empiricism - the only force that has ever offered humanity anything in the way of progress.
    This is the language of dogma, starcreator. Do you consider yourself to be a dogmatist?

    Quote Originally Posted by starcreator
    [Re: statement by NAS] They said it, but can they demonstrate it? You know how weak this appeal to authority is without evidence, Xan.
    If the scientific community is acknowledging that there are many other valid methods of acquiring knowledge and understanding besides the scientific inquiry, then that's the same boys you've entrusted with a definition of the scientific method which you stand behind. You can't only take part of what they say. Are you saying then that you are in disagreement with the National Academy of Sciences on this issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by starcreator
    Then how can you prove invalid my feeling that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the world 16 minutes ago?
    Hold that thought, and we will certaintly get to it shortly. I want so much to respond to it now, but all in good time. I don't want to get ahead of myself.




    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Sorry to say it, but I'm one of those atheists who is "unwilling to admit" that religious experience is a valid form of acquiring knowledge.
    What about the other forms mentioned? How do you feel about them?

    And so you're also saying that you disagree with the NAS's assessment on this matter? What is your fundamental disagreement with what they said?
    Last edited by Xanadu Moo; September 28th, 2007 at 12:00 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    anything could be an illusion and we wouldn't know the difference... proof schmoof...

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu Moo View Post
    What about the other forms mentioned? How do you feel about them?
    "Empirical" is on shakier ground than the others, but still not bad. Everything else is perfectly fine.

    And so you're also saying that you disagree with the NAS's assessment on this matter? What is your fundamental disagreement with what they said?
    Yes, I do disagree with them, although I would note that they wrote this in order to appease Creationists, and there is some technicality wriggle room here. My fundamental disagreement is over the claim that "religious experience" is a way of gaining understanding.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Starcreator
    I hear this all the time, and there is so little truth to it. Of course they want to know "why?". Science wants to know "why?" too. But the fact is, religion has never told us why, how, when or what. It has never told us anything or contributed tangibly to any sort of human progress.
    Of course scientists want to know "why?" but can it (science) answer "why?" in a fashion that tells us "why?" beyond merely telling us the mechanics of "how" something happens.

    Art can be described in multiple ways. For instance you can describe a painting by "how" it arrived at its current state, by describing the brushstrokes, the colors, etc. That tells you the "how" of why the painting is the way it is, but there is quite a bit there missing in the explanation. Why did the painter choose this particular design, these particular methods. If we continue to rely only on science then the answer that we will get is "certain chemical and electric responses resulted in a certain state in the mind, resulting in the impulse to do this, to do that, blah, blah" No that doesn't really answer the question either. Again that leaves us with a "how" type of answer.

    If we wanted to know the why of it, we should simply ask the painter, but that is not a scientific answer, nor is the question one that can be analyzed scientifically....making it non-scientific.

    Science has been enormously successful, and because of this there has arisen a philosophy of scientific materialism which I think many people ascribed to dogmatically without ever really giving thought to the matter. Science was never meant to address all questions and all knowledge so stop prescribing more to it than it meant.
    Last edited by chadn737; September 28th, 2007 at 01:33 PM.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palace of Kubla Khan and bovine worshippers
    Posts
    3,011
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    "Empirical" is on shakier ground than the others, but still not bad. Everything else is perfectly fine.
    At least this will give us some starting ground. I just need a general idea of where everyone stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    Yes, I do disagree with them, although I would note that they wrote this in order to appease Creationists, and there is some technicality wriggle room here. My fundamental disagreement is over the claim that "religious experience" is a way of gaining understanding.
    So what you're saying is you feel they might be making a statement they don't believe to be true for political reasons? Kind of shatters the notion that scientific literature is free from bias.
    anything could be an illusion and we wouldn't know the difference... proof schmoof...

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu Moo View Post
    So what you're saying is you feel they might be making a statement they don't believe to be true for political reasons? Kind of shatters the notion that scientific literature is free from bias.
    Touche...

    I'm honestly not sure if they're serious on the religious experience thing; my guess would be probably (morality and such), but I wanted to bring the possibility of falsehood up.

    Regardless, I do disagree with the statement they made.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Starcreator,

    I would ask that you please read the following article from the Scientist: Fascinating Bohr. Its primary focus is on Neils Bohr, but it also talks quite a bit on the subject of complementarity in Biology. In other words, how their can be two different ways of dealing with a topic and how there are different ways to explore a topic.

    To quote the article:

    For example, experimentally determining why a bird has evolved to migrate south in the fall or winter is a somewhat distinct task from experimentally characterizing the environmental signals that trigger, and the physiological processes that implement, the bird's actual migration.

    Although the article remains specific to the field of biology, we can easily expand the concept to science and knowledge in general.

    PS. If you cant access the full article then I will try to quote the relevant parts for you.


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Starcreator
    But the fact is, religion has never told us why, how, when or what. It has never told us anything or contributed tangibly to any sort of human progress.
    Your proof of this? Would you also say philosophy has never contributed tangibly to any sort of human progress?

    Religion has been the primary factor driving millions to acts of charity....is this not human progress?

    Religion has been a primary factor behind a lot of western philosophy in the past 2000 years....has not any progress resulted from this?

    We could carry this on for page after page.

    I for one do not limit human progress to mere technological advancement.

    Arguably science has advanced our technological know how and understanding of nature, but beyond this what has it done? Science is responsible for the development of some of the most powerful weapons in history...is this progress?

    Science produces knowledge of nature, this is certainly a progression of human knowledge, but beyond that any human progression is the result of something else....not science.

    It has yet to be demonstrated that there is any path to truth about reality other than analyzing reality itself. I'd gladly "bind myself" to reason and empiricism - the only force that has ever offered humanity anything in the way of progress.
    Reason and empiricism are not synonymous with Science. Please understand that, because so many seem to think they are one and the same.

    Maybe its because Im practicing science everyday that I try not to let myself be caught in the trap of thinking there is nothing but science. I know what type of answers science gives and I know that it is insufficient in answering everything.

    [QUOTECastle]Yes, I do disagree with them, although I would note that they wrote this in order to appease Creationists, and there is some technicality wriggle room here. My fundamental disagreement is over the claim that "religious experience" is a way of gaining understanding.[/QUOTE]

    Please expound on why you disagree with religious experience being a way of gaining understanding.

    After all, is not personal experience also a source, in fact arguably our primary source, of understanding and knowledge? Religious experience is a form of personal experience and hence a source of understanding.
    Last edited by chadn737; September 28th, 2007 at 04:51 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    It would be lovely if some of my atheist/agnostic brethren would help out - these responses are becoming long .

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu Moo View Post
    This is the language of dogma, starcreator. Do you consider yourself to be a dogmatist?
    Oh, certainly not. I will accept any means of truth that can be proven to be a valid means of truth, by means of tangible results or otherwise. Empiricism, after all, is not proven as a means to truth, but it is certainly on firmer ground than any other "form of knowledge". The crux of the issue is the matter of proof. Proof in some form, whether empirical or "spiritual", would have to precede my acceptance of any claim.

    (Hopefully you see the irony in your allegation )

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu
    If the scientific community is acknowledging that there are many other valid methods of acquiring knowledge and understanding besides the scientific inquiry, then that's the same boys you've entrusted with a definition of the scientific method which you stand behind. You can't only take part of what they say. Are you saying then that you are in disagreement with the National Academy of Sciences on this issue?
    The scientific method is not entrusted to one body alone; it is practised by thousands of scientists around the world, and not limited to the NAS. I am not surprised than an American scientific organization would acknowledge spirituality as a means to truth, even if they cannot substantiate the claim. One thing is certain, however: their comments on philosophy were not comments on the scientific method. No academic body on Earth would accept "God told me so" as a valid conclusion on a lab report, nor would they accept that as evidence in one's data tables. All scientific bodies, by virtue of being scientific bodies, base their results on empirical data, not spirituality or faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanadu
    Hold that thought, and we will certaintly get to it shortly. I want so much to respond to it now, but all in good time. I don't want to get ahead of myself.
    I am eagerly awaiting your conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    Of course scientists want to know "why?" but can it (science) answer "why?" in a fashion that tells us "why?" beyond merely telling us the mechanics of "how" something happens.
    But it is a scientific answer, through and through! One's fundamental problem is for what reasons a painting was painted by its painter, and all one must do to solve it is ask the painter. Using scientific premises based on empirical observations and inductive reasoning (such as, people do things for reasons, only the person performing an action knows his reason for doing something, inquiring is the best way to obtain such information, etc.) we can solve the problem by asking the painter. Science, at its core, is empiricism. You are practising science when you pour water into a glass or even when you ask why something was done on the basis of what you have observed in past. If you are going to lock science up into a box so tight that it only comprises meaningless technical applications, you are evading the breadth of what science truly is; every use of observations (including questioning) to draw conclusions is science.

    Now, for the painter example, our conclusion may lack certainty as a scientific conclusion, because we have to factor in the idea that the painter may not tell the truth. However, that is what science is about - constant refinement of methods and conclusions - and for the time being, this is the best method we have. All empirically based questions are fundamentally scientific ones. The social sciences tend to explore the more abstract conclusions we can draw that are not as firm as those in physics or chemistry, but the same fundamental concepts apply.

    Still, however, even if we limit science in accordance with your definitions, you have yet to demonstrate that faith is in any way a means of truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    For example, experimentally determining why a bird has evolved to migrate south in the fall or winter is a somewhat distinct task from experimentally characterizing the environmental signals that trigger, and the physiological processes that implement, the bird's actual migration.
    Behavioural biology is the same as any other science; the same concepts are used, but the absence of certainty in observations lead to more abstract conclusions. The same can be said for social sciences - economics, criminology, history. But regardless, we use inductive reasoning and past observations to draw conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad
    Your proof of this? Would you also say philosophy has never contributed tangibly to any sort of human progress?

    Religion has been the primary factor driving millions to acts of charity....is this not human progress?

    Religion has been a primary factor behind a lot of western philosophy in the past 2000 years....has not any progress resulted from this?

    We could carry this on for page after page.
    1. Certainly, basic philosophy is very practical and important, and forms the basis for the fundamental tenets of science and reason. However, I'd need to see a case for the usefulness of domains of philosophy that do not back science or reason.
    2. Show the causal connection between religion and charity and I will grant you the point. By my count, religion incited the crusades, the inquisitions, tons of holy wars and a great deal of middle east fanaticism, though I suppose that's the tip of the iceberg. Not much of a social contribution.
    3. Religion has greatly hindered Western philosophy, exalting faith as a virtue when it should be seen as a vice.
    4. I highly doubt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    Arguably science has advanced our technological know how and understanding of nature, but beyond this what has it done? Science is responsible for the development of some of the most powerful weapons in history...is this progress?
    All knowledge is progress, it just has to be applied in a socially beneficial way. Nuclear arms have been the ultimate deterrent and brought war to a halt, which is more than I can say for the religiously fanatical monarchies of medieval Europe.

    Has everything science has produced been good? No. But the good certainly outweighs the bad a million fold. And producing even one social benefit would be infinitely greater than the net 0 (or very little) that religion has produced.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    Reason and empiricism are not synonymous with Science. Please understand that, because so many seem to think they are one and the same.
    They likely think so because they are the same. That is the core of science - reason applied to empirical results. This diverges into physics, chemistry and biology, but also into many social sciences and everyday patterns of thought. The fact that the former three branches have gained prominence does not mean that the latter ones are no longer science.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    Maybe its because Im practicing science everyday that I try not to let myself be caught in the trap of thinking there is nothing but science. I know what type of answers science gives and I know that it is insufficient in answering everything.
    You are practising a specific type of science, but the outcome of doing this seems to be that you no longer notice that you use science very time you pour a glass of water. Science is, at its core, reason and empiricism, and even though years of progress have emerged in the form of lab coats and microscopes, that doesn't make the basic knowledge we establish scientifically no longer scientific.
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad
    Philosophy and Religions want to know "Why?" (This is a fundamentally different question then "How?")
    No. Religion invents a why and covets science's knowledge of how, where and when.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Zhav - And science has 'Chaos Theory' (which some believe) that thinly papers over the reality that there are chunks of the generally accepted law of 'cause and effect' that science has not yet gotten to grips with. There is also 'String Theory' that similarly also lacks conclusiveness.

    ps. I happen to go along with 'String Theory', but thus far at least, it is only a belief that is based on signs and indications, and falling short of incontravertable proof.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    No. Religion invents a why and covets science's knowledge of how, where and when.
    I'm sure you meant "invents" in a pejorative way, but you are right that religion constructs a "why". As to whether religion as such 'covets' how, where, and when...well, the Bible is a text. A document. It makes claims regarding places, times, events, etc. If that is the same as "coveting science's knowledge of how, where, and when", then I suppose only scientific journals may publish information regarding any location, time-frame, or method.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm sure you meant "invents" in a pejorative way, but you are right that religion constructs a "why". As to whether religion as such 'covets' how, where, and when...well, the Bible is a text. A document. It makes claims regarding places, times, events, etc. If that is the same as "coveting science's knowledge of how, where, and when", then I suppose only scientific journals may publish information regarding any location, time-frame, or method.
    You're not getting it:

    True or false?: If scientists announced today they found proof of Jesus' existence by analyzing ancient DNA found on an equally ancient cross, Christians would be completely uninterested. They'd say, "Religion just tells us about the 'why' and science can't prove religion. God isn't a scientific question."

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,896
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    I'm surprised that no one has questioned the definitions of all these categories of evidence that Xan has unilaterally created. What the heck is "religious experience" anyway? Dreams and Visions? Miracles? The feeling of being "touched" by God? The happiness when surrounded by the society of your church members? The euphoria one experiences when worshipping an imagined entity with a crowd of people? The boredom I feel when listening to my pastor preach?

    Why is "intuitiveness" categorised under empirical evidence? I would definitely not classify intuition as empirical evidence, which refers to things that are observed, not gut feeling.

    How is "biological/physical" evidence distinct from empirical and philosophical evidence, when "biological and physical evidence" all depend on the application of logic and reason to interpret observations of phenomena and results of experiments (as Star pointed out)?

    In what way is "sociological evidence" different from statistical evidence when analyses of behavioural trends are primarily statistical in nature?
    Trendem

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Valid Evidence Types

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Zhav - And science has 'Chaos Theory' (which some believe) that thinly papers over the reality that there are chunks of the generally accepted law of 'cause and effect' that science has not yet gotten to grips with. There is also 'String Theory' that similarly also lacks conclusiveness.

    ps. I happen to go along with 'String Theory', but thus far at least, it is only a belief that is based on signs and indications, and falling short of incontravertable proof.
    In science, our certainty about a claim is directly proportional to the evidence we have for it. String theory carries nowhere near the same shade of certainty as, for instance, the law of gravity. However, theists accept God with a dogmatic, heartfelt certainty, one that is thoroughly unjustified by available evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clive
    I'm sure you meant "invents" in a pejorative way, but you are right that religion constructs a "why".
    It constructs a "why", but for what reasons that religious "why" is any more valid than one that anyone could arbitrarily formulate remains to be seen.
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Disciples
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2009, 03:57 PM
  2. Is the Bible 100% the word of God?
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Religion
    Replies: 487
    Last Post: April 14th, 2007, 02:31 PM
  3. An alternative to a cop out
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: February 8th, 2007, 11:50 AM
  4. What is the soul?
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 10:31 AM
  5. TYPES of evidence
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 14th, 2004, 05:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •