Religious claims are scientific claims

[Damian]

Until we can measure God, religious questions can’t be scientific.

Any claim about something that exists in reality is a scientific claim since science is the current best philosophical process for assessing claims about reality and fantasy. Claims that there is a supernatural realm within reality is a claim about reality which falls under the process of science to determine if it is a fantasy claim or a verifiable claim to make about reality. Otherwise, how do you determine the difference between a fantasy claim and a reality claim? Deities exist in reality, the supernatural exists in reality, deities intervene in a way we can experience, etc. These are all scientific claims about reality.

 

[Damian]

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

You’re claiming that the scientific process can’t determine the difference between fantasy and reality then?

I am pointing out that your models are incomplete; they only include the proven.

Claims about reality that are demonstrable are how you come to justified beliefs about reality. Running the experiment that offers results to demonstrate your claim or to falsify your claim is how you complete your assertion. That is the process we have for determining the difference between fantasy and reality based claims. If we have claims that can not be demonstrated yet about reality, but end up being true eventually, are still unjustified to hold as a true belief about reality as well until we can demonstrate their claim is verified against reality. Repeating your point isn’t going to change this position about how to come to justified beliefs about reality. Claims about magic, the supernatural, and ideas about reality are all unjustified beliefs to hold until you can actually demonstrate your claim. Only after you can demonstrate your claim are you justified to hold that belief about reality. That is, again, how you tell the difference between fantasy and reality claims.

 

[Damian]

Science is about claims that can be put to the test and proven or disproven by use of the scientific method.

So you’re claiming that, because we don’t have the tools or intelligence to investigate a claim, that we wouldn’t use the scientific method once we can? Sorry but you’re missing something in this process. Not having the tools to investigate does not mean you don’t still use the correct method to verify claims about reality. You still have to use that same method, but you have to stop until you develop the tools to implement it. Otherwise, you’d be doing what every charlton does, using only logic to define something into existence of reality and the fallacy of “It’s true until you can convince me otherwise.” Sorry but what is true about reality is what reality actually demonstrates regardless of your logical conclusions that haven’t been demonstrated yet.

 

[PetraG]

So you’re claiming that, because we don’t have the tools or intelligence to investigate a claim, that we wouldn’t use the scientific method once we can? Sorry but you’re missing something in this process. Not having the tools to investigate does not mean you don’t still use the correct method to verify claims about reality. You still have to use that same method, but you have to stop until you develop the tools to implement it. Otherwise, you’d be doing what every charlton does, using only logic to define something into existence of reality and the fallacy of “It’s true until you can convince me otherwise.” Sorry but what is true about reality is what reality actually demonstrates regardless of your logical conclusions that haven’t been demonstrated yet.

No, I’m saying that conjectures having to do with a supreme being cannot, by their nature, be put to the test.
It isn’t a matter of “tools.” It would be like an attorney saying that because a deity is a personal being, he ought to be liable to subpoena. No, by definition a deity would be beyond the jurisdiction of a human court. Likewise, a supernatural being is, by definition, beyond investigation using a model developed for the study of nature.
The thinking that all of reality just must be subject to scientific investigation is totally “unclear on the concept” of even the theoretical relationship between a human being and a deity or even a supernatural being.
I guess I’m saying that the whole universe doesn’t revolve around human beings and our schemes to classify, predict or define of things. It would be science that would be venturing into the realm of the charlatans, if science were to guarantee that it can investigate, classify and develop predictive rules for all of reality. Why would anybody think that? It would take a lot of hubris…and I’m a scientist. It seems to me entirely reasonable to believe that there are realities that are beyond our capacity to put to the test. That doesn’t prove that they do exist, but it is certainly reasonable to believe they might. There is no logical reason they cannot.

 

[Brendan]

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?

God, and the angelic Hosts are supernatural, but real. Fantasy is part of the natural realm and not real. The natural is real, but, by definition, not supernatural.

 

[Damian]

Okay, how do you determine the difference between fantasy and the supernatural, other than definitional differences? Isn’t the claim of the supernatural to be part of reality? So, how do you demonstrate that it actually is after you logically conclude that it should be there? Remember, every hypothesis is also believed to be logically correct as well that hasn’t been verified against reality. Has every hypothesis about reality been found to be true? What is our track record of being logically correct and found to be factually wrong about reality?

 

[Damian]

No, I’m saying that conjectures having to do with a supreme being cannot, by their nature, be put to the test.

Fine, then you are logically correct, but not yet justified to update your internal model of reality. You can be justified to continue to try to find ways to look for it, but not justified in believing its actually a true conclusion to hold about reality until reality actually demonstrates it is actually there. Otherwise, as long as you have an internal logical conclusion you’ve only just defined something into existence.

I have some sugar pills here that can cure cancer since I don’t need to demonstrate that. Only need to convince people of it when I apply your process of modeling reality. Here comes my future private jet and TV deal as a televangelist and faith healer. Makes my skin crawl.

I guess I’m saying that the whole universe doesn’t revolve around human beings and our schemes to classify, predict or define of things.

I’m not making an ego statement. I’m making a claim about a proper process to have a justified belief about reality. You seem to be arguing here that you if you present a proper process for determining if statement X is true or not then its egotistical to request and demand a proper process to assess the claim or any claim. Sorry but this is absurd to argue.

It would be science that would be venturing into the realm of the charlatans, if science were to guarantee that it can investigate, classify and develop predictive rules for all of reality.

Science isn’t venturing into the supernatural because we don’t have the tools to investigate it. The process is still valid for discerning the truth of the claim once we can investigate it though. Again, science is not about facts and tools, its a process for assessing claims about reality. What ever tools and facts we’ll need to create a study for that statement, we’ll piece together, but the philosophical process to determine justified belief about reality is the scientific process.

It seems to me entirely reasonable to believe that there are realities that are beyond our capacity to put to the test.

No argument here.

That doesn’t prove that they do exist, but it is certainly reasonable to believe they might. There is no logical reason they cannot.

Sure you can be logically correct and still factually wrong though. We have to first use a logical conclusion about reality to narrow down our efforts on where to investigate reality so we don’t waste our time and efforts. It focuses our area of research. But we still have to have results though. If we can’t get results, then its still just an idea to hold and we are not justified in updating our model of reality yet.

 

[Dovekin]

You’re claiming that the scientific process can’t determine the difference between fantasy and reality then?

Just to be clear, you are making that claim. You include in your model of reality only what you can prove. Do you mean to say that reality is dependent on our ability to prove? I doubt that, but maybe I am wrong. I have offered a simple test. Is the world 4 dimensional? Or 11 dimensional? Are those extra 7 dimensions real or fantasy?

My position is that provability is not an adequate way to assess reality. Other measures have to be used, if we are to distinguish fantasy from reality. We may sometimes be wrong, but we may have a fuller picture of reality than certainty is able to offer.

Claims about reality that are demonstrable are how you come to justified beliefs about reality.

Yes, I know that is your position. Can you demonstrate its accuracy? If something is true, doesn’t that justify believing in it? Why is demonstration, provability, certainty more important than truth?

 

[Mintaka]

This is a non sequitur conversation.

Science is not a magic word that magically describes all things in existence.

Science is a mode of gaining knowledge. It is not the same as logic, or philosophy, or art, or any of the other modes – including theology. Science can be used to serve theology and vice versa, but they can’t replace each other.

You can use a hammer for many different purposes, but it makes a lousy paintbrush.

If you insist on using a hammer as a paintbrush, you’re going to have a hard time copying the Mona Lisa, or understanding Leonardo’s brushstrokes. The hammer won’t even help you much with mixing paints, even though it might be somewhat useable for grinding pigments. (You’d be better off with a mortar and pestle.)

And that’s not Leonardo’s fault.

Science is a limited mode of processing and understanding limited kinds of information. The limits are what make it useful, just as the limits of a hammer are what make it useful.

A smart craftsman uses the right tool for the job.

Science literally has nothing to say about supernatural or spiritual things, because science is a mode of studying the natural world. So it has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God, just as it has nothing to say about whether the Mona Lisa is a good painting.

Of course, you the OP have access to many different modes of experiencing and thinking about the world, so you can have all kinds of opinions about the Mona Lisa. Science can’t, theology can’t (except in a peripheral way). Your emotions and senses can have an opinion, your storytelling sense can dig into it, and certainly your aesthetic feelings and thoughts will have a workout.

But the mode of science is largely irrelevant to appreciating the Mona Lisa, even though the painting itself was composed through the use of chemicals, gravity, oxidation and aeration, and other physical effects. Scientific knowledge helps preserve it, but it is used in order to serve the other modes.

 

[Mintaka]

OTOH, you could easily make a case that all scientific claims are religious claims, because all facts and theories about the universe reflect back on the Creator and the purposes of Creation. (Ditto art, philosophy, logic, emotions, etc.)

That is why Theology was traditionally seen as the queen of all forms of knowledge and experience, and all forms of knowledge and experience can be understood as her handmaidens.

But in practice, it is difficult for a theologian today to be wise and knowledgeable enough to integrate other modes of knowledge into theology in a successful way. The Fathers and the Scholastics did a much better job. Also, it’s a bit silly to draw premature conclusions about God based on extremely partial and possibly faulty knowledge. It’s not fun to be tentative about the theology of What This Bit of Science Info Means; but it makes more sense in the long run, because often the new science hotness gets disproved by the next new hotness.

 

[Brendan]

Okay, how do you determine the difference between fantasy and the supernatural, other than definitional differences?

A fantasy cannot be evaluated by any branch of Philosophy, what the supernatural ,and other truths can be.

For example, the question of "How many men in the Legio IV Macedonica who fought in the Batavian revolt were named ‘Marcus’? Is not a science question. It is a question for the Philosophical branch known as History ( which is why Historians also get Ph.Ds and not D.Hist degrees)

The answer to that question has a real, numerical answer, but it cannot be exposed to the scientific method. The answer is determined by historical analysis, but the answer is real. There is no chemical composition for the name Marcus that could be analyzed in soil samples from the area, nor ‘Marcus’ particles that can be detected.

Likewise, the evaluation of the truths of the supernatural , that falls into the realm of the Philosophical branch known as Metaphysics.

The tools used in each branch are entirely different. Using the tools of Natural Philosophy to evaluate truths of Metaphysics makes no more sense that trying to build a Marcus Particle detector to evaluate Roman History or trying to detect ‘Justice’ via a blood sample ( Ethics)

In addition, you are correct that, the evaluations in every branch have produced errors in the past, science included. But as the tools for each branch develop, so does the depth and validity of the evaluations.

But the tools, and the truths evaluated, as the distinct province of each branch of Philosophy.

 

[PetraG]

I hope you don’t mean I am opposed to calling people out for using religion to run a con game. That doesn’t require science.

Faith is a matter of trust in things unseen, not a matter of scientific evidence. I don’t think the knowledge that there are things we don’t understand implies that trust placed in a deity and trust placed in a human being who claims that a deity told him to tell you to give all your money to the human for his deity-glorifying private jet must logically be taken as the same thing.

We know with certainty that there are humans out there who will lie to us about anything under the sun in order to enrich themselves or to advance a private agenda. (They’re usually called sociopaths.) Our willingness to accept that there could theoretically be revelations about the supernatural that can never be proven or disproven by science cannot replace the sure knowledge that there is no human endeavor that no one would ever use as cover for a deception. That is true of science and that is true of religion.

That doesn’t mean that science or logic can always tell us who we can trust. Some things, we don’t know and we can’t know. We just have to make the most prudent decisions we can, based on what we do know, and live with the consequences.

 

[Damian]

Why is demonstration, provability, certainty more important than truth?

What are you meaning by “truth”? I am not talking about knowing something as 100% the case because that’s an absurd bar to hold. I am only talking about knowing reality to the extent that we can understand reality. From that understanding we can make models that are repeatable within reality, which is demonstrating that our internal current model of reality does actually match what reality will demonstrate as well. If we perform an experiment or create a task with expected outcomes based on our current understand of reality and we don’t get the results we expect, then that is reality demonstrating to us that our model is wrong and we need to investigate why. Reality is the bar for revealing its truth to us, not our untested logical models. Our untested logical models only tell us where to test and what to test to record reality’s results of running those tests to see if reality actually does match our idea or not. Reality’s demonstrated results is what we have as justified true belief about it.

 

[Damian]

Science is not a magic word that magically describes all things in existence.

No argument here. Science is the current best philosophical process we have for making the most accurate models of reality based on what reality has revealed to us so far. So, again, any claim about reality to hold as a justified true belief about reality goes through the scientific process to tell the difference between a fantasy claim or an actual true claim of reality.

Science can be used to serve theology and vice versa, but they can’t replace each other.

The process of science is what you use to justify a claim that is made against reality. So as long as religious claims stay in the realm of fantasy claims, then yes you don’t need to use the tool of the scientific process to assess the truth claim you are making. Once you do make a claim about reality, then by necessity, you have to use the philosophical scientific process to determine if the claim is a fantasy claim or a reality claim.

Science is a mode of gaining knowledge

about reality. You can use art, logic, and philosophy to explore reality and fantasy, but if you want to have the best internal model of reality, the best justified true belief of reality, then you use the philosophical process of science.

Science literally has nothing to say about supernatural or spiritual things, because science is a mode of studying the natural world.

There is no difference between the natural world and our experience of reality then. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural because we can not determine the difference between the supernatural and fantasy and it being actually part of reality because we don’t have the tools to investigate to determine the difference. So supernatural claims stay in the default position of fantasy claims until you can demonstrate them to be found in reality.

But the mode of science is largely irrelevant to appreciating the Mona Lisa

Appreciation of a story is irrelevant to the question of if the subject of that story actually exists. So not the topic of the discussion. I can appreciate a comic book series and science has little, but something, to say about how much I appreciate Spider Man but it can determine if Spider Man actually exists in reality.

 

[Damian]

OTOH, you could easily make a case that all scientific claims are religious claims, because all facts and theories about the universe reflect back on the Creator and the purposes of Creation. (Ditto art, philosophy, logic, emotions, etc.)

Cart before the horse. You presuppose a creator. The philosophical process of science, if you applied it correctly, forces you to deal with the evidence that it has revealed about reality and then make conclusions from there. Since there is currently zero evidence of a creator, it’s not allowed as a justified belief to hold about the current justified conclusions that reality has revealed about itself to us at this moment. Replace creator with magic and you’ll get the point. There is as much evidence of magic as there is for a creator so far.

That is why Theology was traditionally seen as the queen of all forms of knowledge and experience

Yes Theology was the first attempt at philosophy, just like alchemy was our first attempt at chemistry, and astrology was our first attempt at astronomy.

 

[Damian]

A fantasy cannot be evaluated by any branch of Philosophy, what the supernatural ,and other truths can be.

Every story, fantasy or truth, can be evaluated by philosophy.

Is not a science question.

Does it reference reality? The scientific process does not mean you use beakers to determine someone’s name. It is the best philosophical process for creating a study to address a question bounded within reality. So what ever tools you want to use to assess your question is up to you. But the process of removing personal bias, justified conclusion based on results, etc. That is the philosophical process of science. You seem to not understand this point. You don’t use a physicist to address your question. Anthropology is a science because they use the philosophical process of the scientific method to address your question.

The answer is determined by historical analysis

Through the philosophical process of the scientific method. Just no Bunsen burners were used unless you needed to determine the date of a piece of written literature documents to correlate the document was within the time period being looked at.

Likewise, the evaluation of the truths of the supernatural , that falls into the realm of the Philosophical branch known as Metaphysics.

Metaphysics is just a term that biblical nerds use to label their geekiness of their favorite book as they apply philosophy and science to their favorite stories. Exactly no different than when nerds argue over the minutia of the Avenger Series and the physics of the Flash. Only comic book nerds don’t use a special word for their apologetics.

 

[Damian]

Faith is a matter of trust in things unseen, not a matter of scientific evidence.

I’m fine in trusting in things like a better future and working towards a better future, even though that future has yet to be seen; to match your idea of “things unseen”. However, I do have evidence that empowering women in a society does lift up entire cultures and civilization. I do have evidence of a scientifically literate and skeptical philosophy helps remove charlatans and infallible people and ideas. I do have evidence of grounding my idea of “good” to what is the betterment of humanity if I was unable to choose what sect of humanity I would be born to. However, I don’t claim that unknown future is a certainty and thus I must strive everyday to ease it’s entry and development. Faith claims are a certainty statement. That’s the difference I see between Hope and Faith.

That doesn’t mean that science or logic can always tell us who we can trust.

Trust, by definition is earned by historical reference of data for predicting future events. I trust person X to do Y in the future based on their proven track record. Trust is not granted without a justified context. What is the justification of trusting in the supernatural when there is no way to determine its existence in reality any more than the existence of magic?

 

[Damian]

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?

Yes fairies are an example of a noun that is not associated to be part of reality. It’s a noun we just made-up, imagined. Just like Gandalf and Sherlock Holmes; Maybe not quite Sherlock Holmes because he does not actually do anything that breaks the current understanding of reality. He’s just a really smart person as his super power. There could be just as much evidence of Holmes as there is for Plato’s existence. But neither of those literary characters are claiming to have powers beyond what reality demonstrates to be possible. We would then have to assess the literary evidence of the writings about Holmes to see if he’s just a fictional character, character based off a real person, an actual real person, a character of legend that is based off multiple characters of the past, etc.