B
buffalo
Guest
When science went falsifiable it lost its interest in the total truth.
- Status
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Only if one equates truth with superstition. Truth should always be more than mere superstition, which is why truth should always be more than mere religious belief. Religiously, truth and untruth are equivalent because one man’s truth is always another man’s untruth. For example, for any given religion, there are always more unbelievers than believers. There is always more untruth than truth, religiously speaking.
Science is different. Saying that science is falsifiable is like saying that medicine is falsifiable. It’s a statement that doesn’t make sense. The theory of gravity is, however, certainly falsifiable. But the belief in the theory of gravity is not falsifiable. Big difference. Belief in alien abductions is not falsifiable, for example. Belief in alien abductions can be examined but for a given believer, this “truth” is not up for examination.
There is a saying, “Knowledge is Power; the Truth will make you Free.” This saying assumes the value of scientifically verifiable and available knowledge as the basis of human truth and freedom. If I do not accept science as a way of determining truth, then we have to change the saying to “Truth is Power, but Knowledge will make you Free.” In this case, truth is then reduced to nothing more than mere religious superstition and personal bias.
W
Wirraway
Guest
when faith masquerades as science we get, among other things, creationism. the wheels fall off the creationist cart when it comes to falsifiability. there is no set of facts that, if established, would disprove creationism to a creationist.
as a direct consequence, creationism is worthless as a tool for understanding God’s creation.
creationists contribute nothing; make no original discoveries, do no original research, no original thinking because there’s no need to do any of this. what passes for “creation science” is derivivative, hijacked main stream science with a gloss of a particular kind of religious belief. it is mostly an exercise in backpedalling, excuse making, and special pleading. it is the perfect unfalsifiable tautology. its arguments are typically dishonest: misrepresentations, misunderstood science, misunderstood engineering, and misunderstood other disciplines, strawmen, and virtually every form of flawed reasoning including ad hominems as seen in this and a half dozen other threads.
just sayin’.
F
Fran65
Guest
Sorry, but this not correct. You can prove or disprove a belief in gravity; in whatever form you mean:
- It is demonstrable whether this person (or people generally) thinks that gravity exists. Easily tested: ask them. This can be observed, measured and replicated. Your hypothesis, that this person believes in gravity, is then either supported or contradicted and it can be verified.
- It is also demonstrable that gravity exists. easily tested: drop an object and see whether it hits the ground. This can be observed, measured and replicated. Your hypothesis, that gravity exists, is then either supported or contradicted and it can be verified.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
No. Religious reasoning contains scientific reasoning, meaning religious reasoning is a super-set of scientific reasoning.
Those who rely solely on scientific reasoning are working with a sub-set of all reasoning, and are therefore prone to error due to incomplete consideration of “items of reasonableness” that they can’t see (or rather won’t see).
:shamrock2:
C
crowonsnow
Guest
It is not possible to prove or disprove stated beliefs. Prove that people believe in bigfoot and aren’t just pretending. Prove that someone thinks “7” is a lucky number and isn’t just pretending. Or prove the opposite if you like.
F
Fran65
Guest
Well, what you can do is ask the same question in several different forms and in indirect ways. The other way is to ask a large enough sample of people to ‘even out’ any inaccurate self reports.
The other way is to observe that person’s behaviour in related areas and see whether stated beliefs match up to actual behaviour.
But you’re right that it is very difficult to disprove a person’s stated belief.
I cannot ‘prove’ for example whether a person really is atheist or not. Only God knows that
However, I don’t what you’re trying to add to the discussion here?
The other way is to observe that person’s behaviour in related areas and see whether stated beliefs match up to actual behaviour.
But you’re right that it is very difficult to disprove a person’s stated belief.
I cannot ‘prove’ for example whether a person really is atheist or not. Only God knows that
However, I don’t what you’re trying to add to the discussion here?
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cats and Dogs,
Can you give and example of religious reasoning that is not scientific reasoning?
Best,
Leela
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
D’oh!! I knew you were gonna ask that!
How’s this: Since God is axiomatically all-powerful, all-truth, and all-good, God is to be believed and will show why He is to be believed by faithfully believing in Him.
The reason that this is not scientific reasoning is because it axiomatically assumes revealed truth (God’s “attributes”) as being true and derives proof of the assumed axiom from assuming that axiom, which would be “illegal” in normal (though not “enlightened”) scientific inquiry.
:shamrock2:
W
Wirraway
Guest
couldn’t you have just stated “circular reasoning”?D’oh!! I knew you were gonna ask that!
How’s this: Since God is axiomatically all-powerful, all-truth, and all-good, God is to be believed and will show why He is to be believed by faithfully believing in Him.
The reason that this is not scientific reasoning is because it axiomatically assumes revealed truth (God’s “attributes”) as being true and derives proof of the assumed axiom from assuming that axiom, which would be “illegal” in normal (though not “enlightened”) scientific inquiry.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I could have, yes.
But it’s a very special case of circular reasoning.
In fact, the ONLY case of circular reasoning which isn’t illegitimate, much like the fact that we must believe the Church is what the Church says she is.
That is why Catholics have one base of truth, and no one else has any base of truth (which isn’t “appropriated” from the Church). We admit a “stopping point” to “scientific reasoning” and no one else does, leaving themselves baseless.
:shamrock2:
W
Wirraway
Guest
I affirm the consequent of your statement.I could have, yes.
But it’s a very special case of circular reasoning.
In fact, the ONLY case of circular reasoning which isn’t illegitimate, much like the fact that we must believe the Church is what the Church says she is.
That is why Catholics have one base of truth, and no one else has any base of truth (which isn’t “appropriated” from the Church). We admit a “stopping point” to “scientific reasoning” and no one else does, leaving themselves baseless.
:shamrock2:
B
buffalo
Guest
correct.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi CatsandDogs,
Best,
Leela
I can’t help thinking that circular reasoning is a bad thing. No one else has a base because you have a base because you assume you have a base?I could have, yes.
But it’s a very special case of circular reasoning.
In fact, the ONLY case of circular reasoning which isn’t illegitimate, much like the fact that we must believe the Church is what the Church says she is.
That is why Catholics have one base of truth, and no one else has any base of truth (which isn’t “appropriated” from the Church). We admit a “stopping point” to “scientific reasoning” and no one else does, leaving themselves baseless.
:shamrock2:
Best,
Leela
W
Wirraway
Guest
its a special case for Catholics because we believe in revealed truth. faith and morals, ok. but not for things like, say, evolution or ye arke.
otherwise, its a considered a formal error of logic.
L
Leela
Guest
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Go for it, Wir!
Better you than me! <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle>
(( Though, I’ll chuck this into the mix: Revealed Truth. ))
:shamrock2:
W
Wirraway
Guest
no way, there are scores of people waiting to pounce on the slightest Error and condemn me further that I’ve already fallen.Go for it, Wir!
Better you than me! <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle>
(( Though, I’ll chuck this into the mix: Revealed Truth. ))
:shamrock2:
C
crowonsnow
Guest
That’s because it isn’t important whether a person is atheist or not atheist. It’s only important what that person does.Well, what you can do is ask the same question in several different forms and in indirect ways. The other way is to ask a large enough sample of people to ‘even out’ any inaccurate self reports.
The other way is to observe that person’s behaviour in related areas and see whether stated beliefs match up to actual behaviour.
But you’re right that it is very difficult to disprove a person’s stated belief.
I cannot ‘prove’ for example whether a person really is atheist or not. Only God knows that
I agree that a person is what a person does. And what a person does is what a person believes. If that is not true then reason and logic are not possible because the universe no longer makes sense.
I do indeed wish people were smart enough to know that the difference between what a person says and what a person does is what a person does. Know what I mean? You can call an elephant anything you wish but it doesn’t change the elephant.
I was simply responding to my esteemed cyber-forum-mate buffalo’s take on truth. So I will defer.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
There’s nothing to unpack. It’s just a label.
- Status