Religious claims are scientific claims

[Gorgias]

Okay responses like this are tiring.

Trust me… my posts aren’t the only ones that are tiring here.

Scientific claims are the application of logic when the nouns in the logical argument are in reference to reality.

That’s a wonderful assertion. Please prove it.

If you can’t explain your position and what you find fault with the conversation

Your claims. Your responsibility to prove them.

 

[Dovekin]

You seriously believe that I am talking about a model of reality where everything is known about it?

You are the one talking about “actually representing reality as accurately as possible.” If you reject an internal model because it is not “actually representing reality as accurately as possible” then why would you accept an internal model that you know is not doing that.

Imagine a situation where you know 3 things that are true, think 4 other things are true, while another 5 things you have no idea if they are true. (Though you do not know it, all 12 things are true) Which internal model will be the most accurate? The one that uses 3, 7, or 12 elements? You advocate using only what is provable, ie only uses 3 elements, so you can be certain all of your model is true. But the one that uses 12 elements is the most accurate model, though we do not know that.

Your choice is not based on accuracy but provability. I would probably use the 7 element model, that uses 7 elements that I think are true even though I can only prove 3. I would not have the accuracy of the 12 element model, but it would be more accurate han your 3 element system.

 

[Damian]

Your choice is not based on accuracy but provability.

We can not determine the difference without provability. Otherwise how do you tell the difference between the imaginary and reality?

I would probably use the 7 element model, that uses 7 elements that I think are true even though I can only prove 3

Yes this is how religious frauds get to fly around in private jets because their flocks are this credulous.

I would not have the accuracy of the 12 element model, but it would be more accurate han your 3 element system.

If you can’t demonstrate why your 7 imagined ideas about reality are actually part of reality then your imagined ideas are just imaginary at this point. They could be internally consistent, but still imaginary as well. Same premise as comic book stories. Internally logically consistent without any demonstrable evidenced that this model actually matches reality.

 

[Damian]

You’d have to use science to prove that science is bunk, which is self-refuting

Science is self correcting. You do use science to support or withdraw scientific statements about reality. Science is not a list of facts about reality. Its the current best philosophical process for determining the difference between reality and the imaginary.

cosmological arguments are demonstrated

No they are inferred, not demonstrable because our revealed logical identities are the logical consistent identities that work within our experienced reality of this universe. We can only assume they work in a realm before our universe existed, but not know if they actually do or not until we verify it.

What you’re asking for on the flip side is that we scientifically demonstrate that the principles that science requires are true

Your saying we can’t demonstrate scientifically the revealed logical truths of our experienced reality? I can’t demonstrate the philosophical law of non contradiction? Excluded middle?

our reasoned belief

And here’s why illusionists and televangelists have a career. But at least the illusionists are honest about the trick they are selling.

 

[Rhubarb]

So how does this all tie together to show that religious claims are scientic claims? I’m genuinely curious about this leap. I see a smattering of Intro to Phil ideas but it doesn’t go anywhere.

 

[Damian]

The premise is that any logical claim that uses nouns that are to be associated within reality is a scientific claim by definition.
See my example of Rocks vs Fairies for examples of logical claims with nouns not associated within reality while the other noun is associated within reality.
Religion claims that the supernatural is within reality. So that is a scientific claim to make.

 

[Rhubarb]

But we can make all kinds of claims using nouns that aren’t scientific.

“Brad is too tall” “Celery is gross” “This is over there” etc.

And I don’t think I can see how something like “God exists” can be subject to experimentation and quantification. Which are intergal parts of science.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

This might seem like a crazy question but why exactly are fairies not considered “associated within reality”? Do you mean that they are meant to be imaginary creatures? Maybe a better example would be a fictional character like Gandalf, because at one point it was actually fairly common to consider fairies real. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the guy who created Sherlock Holmes, believed fairies were real until the day he died.

 

[Rhubarb]

But moreso I think your whole project here is pretty hand-wavy.

You define “scientific statements” as “statements with nouns”. So your conclusion is “religious statements are statements with nouns”. This is trivial at best, and vacuous at worse.

I think what you mean is “religious statements are naturalistic statements”. Which, given the audience of a Catholic forum, should be granted as a given.

 

[Rhubarb]

That’s just it. More nuanced logic does allow for talk of fictitional things in ways that make sense.

“Leonardo is the leader of the Ninja Turtles” is a true statement even though Leonardo and the Ninja Turtles don’t exist in our world.

That’s why I think the OP is confusing the naturalist-non-naturalist divide with “logical-scientific”

 

[Damian]

And I don’t think I can see how something like “God exists” can be subject to experimentation and quantification. Which are intergal parts of science.

So this gets to my Einstein’s Gravity Wave example. You can imagine what reality would be like with X being apart of it and then go on to create a model of reality for what markers in reality would be to verify that X being in reality would be. Such as Einstein mathematically concluding that Gravity Waves should exist and what markers to look for in reality to detect them. That’s fine having an internally logically consistent model of your idea of reality. However, until you can actually have reality demonstrate your internally logically consistent idea is part of reality, that is when you are justified in actually updating your internal model of reality. That is why we didn’t update our science books describing reality with gravity waves until 2015 when we actually detected them. We were justified in looking for them, but not justified in updating our model until reality actually demonstrated those gravity waves are there. If you update your model of reality before reality demonstrates your idea to be there, then you don’t have a method that actually can determine the difference between the imaginary and reality claims.

 

[Rhubarb]

But gravity waves and so on and so forth were determined mathematically using observation and experimentation.

Now let’s say we take for granted someone can “observe God’s existence through creation”. You can’t quantify it. You can’t make predictions and experiment with God. What units would we use for measuing God? It’s not a scientific question. Our talking about God always goes back to argument. Not experiment.

 

[Dovekin]

We can not determine the difference without provability. Otherwise how do you tell the difference between the imaginary and reality?

Yes, that is what I am saying. Do we agree your model is about what is provable, not what is real?

If you can’t demonstrate why your 7 imagined ideas about reality are actually part of reality then your imagined ideas are just imaginary at this point.

Whether I can demonstrate why my “ideas” are part part of reality or not, they may still reflect reality. People fell flat on their faces long before an apple fell on Newton or Einstein decribed the curvature of the world. Gravity is real whether I can prove it or not.

The point is that your system is based on certainty, provability. It is not the most accurate system that you seek, but only the one you can be most certain of. It may be that an 11 dimension universe is more accurate than a 4 dimension universe. If we prove it, it does not become more accurate than it was before the proof.

There are other approaches, like probability, faith, etc. There are problems with them as systems too. But you have not shown that provability gives you a more accurate model.

 

[Damian]

But gravity waves and so on and so forth were determined mathematically using observation and experimentation.

Gravity waves were thought up off of extrapolating from the known data of reality. Then he looked to see if he could create a logical model that supports his idea. That is exactly no different than what religious do when they observe reality and extrapolate the idea of the supernatural and then create apologetic logical arguments to support their claims. They just don’t use the logical arguments of mathematical models but philosophical models. I don’t see this process being any different. The only problem that I see it is that we were able to create tests to falsify Einstein’s mathematical model, but it ended up being verified. After verification, that was when we were actually justified in updating our model of reality to include gravity waves. Currently we have no way to falsify the religious claims of the existence of the supernatural because of our ignorance in creating tools and tests to falsify it. So until we can falsify or verify the claim, it is not justified in updating our model of reality to include the supernatural yet. That is where I see people taking the “leap of faith”. To update their internal model of reality to include the supernatural when we can’t actually verify it is there either way.

 

[Damian]

Whether I can demonstrate why my “ideas” are part part of reality or not, they may still reflect reality.

So does every comic book series as well. They all still reflect reality in some way except for the superpowers of the characters. This method you are espousing does not allow you to verify the difference between fantasy and reality.

But you have not shown that provability gives you a more accurate model.

Every successfully repeatable process of science is does prove the accuracy of our internal models of reality. Planes fly, medicine works, rockets land on the moon. It works. That is the provability.

 

[Dovekin]

This method you are espousing does not allow you to verify the difference between fantasy and reality.

Yes, that is right. Your method doesn’t either. What is your point?

Every successfully repeatable process of science is does prove the accuracy of our internal models of reality. Planes fly, medicine works, rockets land on the moon. It works. That is the provability.

I am not questioning the accuracy of what you have proven. I am pointing out that your models are incomplete; they only include the proven. We may need another 7 dimensions to describe reality accurately. In that respect, your models are no more accurate than others. And who knows how many more things there are that are not dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Rhubarb]

You’re missing the point - Mathematical quantification. We can’t do that with God, etc. You’ve admitted “Currently we have no way to falsify the religious claims of the existence of the supernatural because of our ignorance in creating tools and tests to falsify it.” We can’t test and experiment with God.

Until we can measure God, religious questions can’t be scientific. We can’t create a theory (in the academic sense of the word, not the colloquial use of the word) of God. That’s what it means to be scientific.

 

[Brendan]

Any claim is a scientific claim once the argument has nouns, associated with reality, in it.

That definition is not a true one. ‘Science’ is the realm of natural philosophy (which is why Physicists, Biologists and Chemists receive Doctor of Philosophy degrees (Ph.D) ), as such it only addresses what is real within the natural realm. Science does not claim to be authoritative in the supernatural realm, and thus can make no claims regarding the supernatural realm.

Your error is in assuming that all reality is addressed by Science. That is not true.

 

[Damian]

as such it only addresses what is real within the natural realm

How do you determine the difference between the natural realm and reality and fantasy? I don’t see a difference between the natural and reality. Why do you?

 

[PetraG]

No, because some claims have nothing to do with a phenomenon that can be put to the test. Science is about claims that can be put to the test and proven or disproven by use of the scientific method.