Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

[chopperdudes]

When one openly attacks a religion, they are deemed impolite, rude, and gets attacked back for venturing into enemy territories. however, i think any idea should be subjected to the same amount of scrutiny given the chance to. every scientific theory undergoes a huge amount of scrutiny/peer reviewing/trying to prove it wrong before it is even published to the public.

the theory of evolution undergoes an exception amount of scrutiny (not only by the religious community but more so the scientific peer reviewers), in fact that's one of the reasons why it's one of the most solid theories in present time.

religion is also an idea, however, they undergo little scrutiny and those doesn't really affect it at all. attacks against religions are big no-no's. isn't this unfair?

one of the best flow charts i've seen:

Removed. If the OP wants to salvage a single strand of legitimacy from this thread, he won't mind. If not, I'll gladly lock the thread for lack of an interest in discourse.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by chopperdudes

When one openly attacks a religion, they are deemed impolite, rude, and gets attacked back for venturing into enemy territories.

Ah, how nice of you to take an isolated incident and apply it to every instance. Thanks for being so intellectually honest right off the bat.

however, i think any idea should be subjected to the same amount of scrutiny given the chance to. every scientific theory undergoes a huge amount of scrutiny/peer reviewing/trying to prove it wrong before it is even published to the public.

Religious ideas undergo massive amounts of religious scrutiny. Scientific ideas undergo massive amounts of scientific scrutiny.

What happens when religious ideas undergo scientific scrutiny or vice versa? Absolutely nothing. They are entirely separate domains governed by very different rules. By definition, science CANNOT scrutinize constructs, and religion is inherently based on a construct.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[infinity.]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Ah, how nice of you to take an isolated incident and apply it to every instance. Thanks for being so intellectually honest right off the bat.

It's a generalization.. don't be over-sensitive.

Religious ideas undergo massive amounts of religious scrutiny. Scientific ideas undergo massive amounts of scientific scrutiny.

What happens when religious ideas undergo scientific scrutiny or vice versa? Absolutely nothing. They are entirely separate domains governed by very different rules. By definition, science CANNOT scrutinize constructs, and religion is inherently based on a construct.

--Guido

this is said about all religious debates, even though i agree with, it seems like a cop-out to not even discuss the situation at hand. Deleting the flowchart was completely immature.

OP,

attacks against religion happen all the time. look at cases where parents sue schools for religious conduct,

look at what happened on the openings of the scientologist churches,

look at the creationism museum (which coincidentally is less than an hour away from where i live.)

look at the videos on youtube criticizing religion.



if you're going to talk about religion you should just not bring in science all together and vice-versa.

[chopperdudes]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Ah, how nice of you to take an isolated incident and apply it to every instance. Thanks for being so intellectually honest right off the bat.

isolated incident? that's a generalization, even one of the rules on the forum if i'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

What happens when religious ideas undergo scientific scrutiny or vice versa? Absolutely nothing.

in my opinion this is so because theists will not accept the evidences at hand. if there is a system as to how to measure a debate via the evidences and facts given, i think science would be declared the winner on contraversal grounds between science and religion.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

They are entirely separate domains governed by very different rules. By definition, science CANNOT scrutinize constructs, and religion is inherently based on a construct.

this is true if the 2 doesn't overlap, but when they do, and the issue is contraversal, it is best that both sides be scrutinized by evidences at hand imho.

btw i got that flow chart from either tass or synth i believe while browsing this forum.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by chopperdudes

isolated incident? that's a generalization, even one of the rules on the forum if i'm not mistaken.

Call it what you want; it's still dishonest.

in my opinion this is so because theists will not accept the evidences at hand.

Good thing it's not based on your opinions then. SCIENTISTS, when defining SCIENCE, came up with it. You cannot TEST or PREDICT constructs, therefore science HAS to disregard them entirely.

Here, a site: http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/P3333fa05/SciMeth/

The lecture on the scientific method itself from a class which teaches how the scientific method works. Don't take my word for it, if you don't want to.

if there is a system as to how to measure a debate via the evidences and facts given, i think science would be declared the winner on contraversal grounds between science and facts.

Science is based on facts and nothing else, so I'm going to assume you meant "science and religion" at the end there.

Do you understand what you're asking, though? You want a system to measure an idea's value based on testable, provable facts. That is set up entirely in the realm of science. That's like saying you'd bet on the Dallas Cowboys in a football game versus the New York Yankees.

If you come away from this thread learning only one thing, please let it be this: Religion and Science CANNOT tread on each other's toes. They can neither prove nor disprove each other. God, as a scientific construct who is capable of disobeying all of science's rules, cannot be described (or his existence proven) in scientific terms.

this is true if the 2 doesn't overlap, but when they do, and the issue is contraversal, it is best that both sides be scrutinized by evidences at hand imho.

See above, especially the part where they don't ever overlap. You may have heard arguments that inappropriately and ignorantly try to overlap the two, but by the definition of each, they cannot.

Originally Posted by Infinity.

Deleting the flowchart was completely immature.

This is Critical Thinking, a place for critical thinking, not for taking misleading and ignorant jabs at a side; loaded OP's are not welcome here.

if you're going to talk about religion you should just not bring in science all together and vice-versa.

And here we have a winner.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Relambrien]

EDIT: Comment retracted due to this

Originally Posted by Tasselfoot

nuh uh. religion threads, especially outside of CT, are a big no-no from Me...

history has shown that there is no good that can come from any religion based thread.

Tass closed pretty much the same thread (by the same guy) in Chit-Chat, so I would assume he wouldn't be particularly happy with this either.

[chopperdudes]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Call it what you want; it's still dishonest.

dishonest bout what?? are you saying that in your point of view openly attacking religion is acceptable? dunno what you mean.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Good thing it's not based on your opinions then. SCIENTISTS, when defining SCIENCE, came up with it. You cannot TEST or PREDICT constructs, therefore science HAS to disregard them entirely.

Here, a site: http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/P3333fa05/SciMeth/

The lecture on the scientific method itself from a class which teaches how the scientific method works. Don't take my word for it, if you don't want to.

the lack of falsifiability of relgion & god just makes it useless in terms of predicting, an unfalsifiable claim should stop at just being that, a claim, it does nothing and therefore should not be kept (not saying the morals etc, just ie. events described in genesis for ppl who take them literally).

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Science is based on facts and nothing else, so I'm going to assume you meant "science and religion" at the end there.

sorry yes i will edit that later.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Do you understand what you're asking, though? You want a system to measure an idea's value based on testable, provable facts. That is set up entirely in the realm of science. That's like saying you'd bet on the Dallas Cowboys in a football game versus the New York Yankees.

if an idea make claims and statements, then yes it does need to be supported by provable facts and empirical evidences. not only in the realm of science, but in everything else OTHER than religion. what's good claiming that i can fly if i don't prove it?

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

If you come away from this thread learning only one thing, please let it be this: Religion and Science CANNOT tread on each other's toes. They can neither prove nor disprove each other. God, as a scientific construct who is capable of disobeying all of science's rules, cannot be described (or his existence proven) in scientific terms.

actually, i believe science actually does it's own thing, it's own discoveries, it's own testings, etc. however, when science found something against the believes of theists, they (theists) will tread on science's toes. if you didn't know, creationists tried to advance religion into the education curriculum, therefore renamed it as Intelligent Design (ID), and established it as a "contraversy" to evolution. the unfalsifiability of ID alone makes it pseudoscience. theists have attacked evolution by saying it teaches an immoral way of life and tells us to behave like animals. the facts are the facts, i might say or not believe i'm a male, but it is a fact that i am one.

also, i'm sure you know the burden of proof lies with the claim. it is impossible to disprove god, just as it is impossible to disprove the sphaghetti monster. the lack of proof FOR god isn't not proof against god, but certainly is evidence that He does not exist. also, as mentioned, unfalsifiable claims/things are of no value (factually speaking, not morality).

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

See above, especially the part where they don't ever overlap. You may have heard arguments that inappropriately and ignorantly try to overlap the two, but by the definition of each, they cannot.

so you don't think creation overlaps with evolution? you don't think genesis overlaps with any facts in the science and geology field? you don't think the impossibility of noah's ark overlaps with anything at all? or in your opinion they shouldn't be taken literally?

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

This is Critical Thinking, a place for critical thinking, not for taking misleading and ignorant jabs at a side; loaded OP's are not welcome here.

CT is a place to debate / make points. aren't you supposed to make a stance and defend it? i was making my stance i'm pretty sure you noticed, and i don't see anything wrong with the validity of that flow chart. it is just an easier way of showing how things work. is that not how science work and religion work?


ps. Guido please i don't see why you're coming across so hot.

Tass closed pretty much the same thread (by the same guy) in Chit-Chat, so I would assume he wouldn't be particularly happy with this either.

yes i know. it is not really similar because instead of asking for a full out religion vs science debate, it is still CT as to why religions are subjected to less scrutiny. I didn't make any personal attacks or rude comments, i was just referring to the points.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by chopperdudes

dishonest bout what?? are you saying that in your point of view openly attacking religion is acceptable? dunno what you mean.

You stated as fact in all scenarios something that you saw happen in some. As it doesn't happen in all (even many) such scenarios, such a statement is dishonest.

That is, you stated that when religion is attacked, people become defensive, rude, etc., and that most certainly doesn't happen all the time. Not only are such generalizations dishonest and therefore not critical thinking, it was your first sentence, and so it made a very poor first impression.

the lack of falsifiability of relgion & god just makes it useless in terms of predicting, an unfalsifiable claim should stop at just being that, a claim, it does nothing and therefore should not be kept (not saying the morals etc, just ie. events described in genesis for ppl who take them literally).

Ah, see, now you're getting it. One key element in the scientific method is the prediction of outcomes (another being falsifiability). Without that, there's no science! Religious claims are inscrutable and should therefore be discarded. That is the very reason why science has no place analyzing religion and the very reason it cannot and should not be held to the same scrutiny as science (as the OP suggests).

if an idea make claims and statements, then yes it does need to be supported by provable facts and empirical evidences.

No, sir. Only if the claim can be tested does it need provable facts to support its claim. The instant a construct is introduced, a scientist must throw up his hands and proclaim, "I want nothing to do with this!"

Tell a group of philosophers, theologians, and metaphysicists to prove the existence of God and they'll get hard to work, mounting piles upon piles of (religious) evidence for and against it.

Tell a group of scientists to prove the existence of God and they'll sit on their hands.

That's how it should be, too. As soon as you attempt to falsify or verify a construct, you have left the realm of science.

actually, i believe science actually does it's own thing, it's own discoveries, it's own testings, etc. however, when science found something against the believes of theists, they (theists) will tread on science's toes. if you didn't know, creationists tried to advance religion into the education curriculum, therefore renamed it as Intelligent Design (ID), and established it as a "contraversy" to evolution.

That's a stark generalization of what actually happened, but that's neither here nor there.

And yes, proponents who would have ID taught in science classes (do note that distinction; there's nothing wrong with teaching ID in school, so long as it's taught in some sort of religious studies class and not in a science class) are making the same grave error as those who somehow think that science and evolution can disprove the Bible. Those are both disgusting claims that have absolutely no intellectual merit.

I'll also point out that your example of the ID-in-school has no bearing on my statement that it addressed. Just because some religious people don't understand science and thus claim that they do interfere with each other doesn't mean that they actually do.

the unfalsifiability of ID alone makes it pseudoscience

Carefulcarefulcareful with your terminology here. Firstly, you're making a very broad generalization of ID there, and I'd encourage you to find out more about the various types of ID and what the different types claim before blanketing them all together. ID is religious in nature, and thus based on a construct (not scientific in nature). Pseudoscience is reserved for those beliefs that claim to be scientific nature, but have failed to hold up to scientific rigor (astrology, chiropractics, acupuncture, homeopathy, telekinesis)

theists have attacked evolution by saying it teaches an immoral way of life and tells us to behave like animals.

Careful not to derail your own thread.

the facts are the facts, i might say or not believe i'm a male, but it is a fact that i am one.

Ahh, here we open up a new door to another very important distinction between science and religion, one of truth.

Ask a Christian how the universe actually came into existence. The likely response? "God created it."

Ask a scientist the same question, and his first words should be, "I don't know." That should, however, be followed by, "But the evidence suggests that..."

Science cannot tell you what actually happened; all it can do is show you what all the evidence suggests. Hypotheses are formed, refuted, revamped, and supported as more facts and evidence are presented. This can lead to a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence that points to one extremely likely outcome, but can science ever be 100% sure? No. It can be so sure that you'd be a fool to not believe the evidence, but it cannot be certain.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to know the truth. It DOES make those claims of 100% certainty.

Which is right? Nobody knows.

It is due to that uncertainty that many people can logically justify a belief in a Genesis-like creation. They would, however, be at a significant disadvantage if they tried to justify their claim in a scientific environment.

Faith versus evidence. Believe what you want, but you can't justify that you're certainly right.

so you don't think creation overlaps with evolution? you don't think genesis overlaps with any facts in the science and geology field? you don't think the impossibility of noah's ark overlaps with anything at all? or in your opinion they shouldn't be taken literally?

My opinion is irrelevant. An educated religious man knows how to and where to draw the line, though.

CT is a place to debate / make points. aren't you supposed to make a stance and defend it? i was making my stance i'm pretty sure you noticed, and i don't see anything wrong with the validity of that flow chart. it is just an easier way of showing how things work. is that not how science work and religion work?

Like I said earlier, it was an intellectually dishonest oversimplification created either out of ignorance of methodology or a desire to make a snide jab at a side.

Given the very strict requirements of the Critical Thinking forum, it was entirely inappropriate for an OP.

ps. Guido please i don't see why you're coming across so hot.

I know why, but don't sweat it. One reason is to see if you're willing and able to reasonably defend your points, which you seem to be doing well enough so far.

Just don't take it personally, okay? =)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Grandiagod]

Douglas Adams wrote a terrific piece about this later included in "The Salmon of Doubt".

[devonin]

Intelligent religious people never suggest that their views are scientific, or should stand up to scientific rigor.

Intelligent scientific people never suggest that their views are religious, or should stand up to religious constructivism (constructionism?).

All kinds of religious and scientific people try to cross those lines all the time. You'll notice the lack of extra adjective in the preceding statement.

Anybody who says religion should stand up to scientific rigor or be discarded simply doesn't understand or doesn't -want- to understand religion and how religion works.

You're asking us to compare Terminator 2 and Stardust. They're both movies, lots of people like one or the other, sometimes both, sometimes neither. Just because they are both movies doesn't mean they should necessarily stand up to the exact same criteria of evaluation, nor should they. If you're evaluating them based on gunfights and explosions, T2 comes out the clear winner. If you're evaluating them on gay pirates and swordfights, Stardust is the clear winner.

The whole point is that neither one is trying to do anything the other one is doing, and trying to force them to compete in the same arena is just foolish.

Edit: The flowchart (which I didn't see, but I'm 99.99% certain I know what it was) was posted by me somewhere on the forum, rather than, I suspect, Synth or Tass.

[Grandiagod]

I think when something decides that it's the ultimate truth to not criticize it and examine it to see if it's actually TRUE is pretty dumb.

[devonin]

Well, it's unfortunate that you think it is dumb. But "I think it is dumb" isn't very good CT.

Here's the thing though, explicit in the whole concept of faith is that it does not need to be questioned. Having faith in a construct requires that you be prepared to accept it without subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. Anybody who tells you that religion -does- stand up to scientific scruitny is just as idiotic as someone who says it -should-

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well, it's unfortunate that you think it is dumb. But "I think it is dumb" isn't very good CT.

Here's the thing though, explicit in the whole concept of faith is that it does not need to be questioned. Having faith in a construct requires that you be prepared to accept it without subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. Anybody who tells you that religion -does- stand up to scientific scruitny is just as idiotic as someone who says it -should-

Change "dumb" to the negative adjective or phrase of your choice please.

And you're going back to the whole "If something is taken on faith having proof for it would negate it having to be taken on faith" argument.

Sorry when something claims it's a universal truth and correct in every way and then says you can't criticize it because it relies on faith I see that as a terribly flawed system. It may be the reality of the situation but that doesn't make it correct by any leap of logic.

[devonin]

Flaws in the church aren't the same as flaws in the faith. This seems to be where your confusion is coming from. And I am not going back to that argument, because I'm not going down the "proof denies faith" road, I'm going down the "Faith requires no proof" road which is a very different flavour.

[chopperdudes]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

You stated as fact in all scenarios something that you saw happen in some. As it doesn't happen in all (even many) such scenarios, such a statement is dishonest.

That is, you stated that when religion is attacked, people become defensive, rude, etc., and that most certainly doesn't happen all the time. Not only are such generalizations dishonest and therefore not critical thinking, it was your first sentence, and so it made a very poor first impression.

nonononono, i'm saying if I openly attack religion, //I//'ll be deemed as rude and offensive and 'why not just leave them be?', and i'm asking why, because if you openly attack the claim that i can fly, it's perfectly acceptable. i'm not saying that when i attack them, they become rude and defensive, nono, misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Ah, see, now you're getting it. One key element in the scientific method is the prediction of outcomes (another being falsifiability). Without that, there's no science! Religious claims are inscrutable and should therefore be discarded. That is the very reason why science has no place analyzing religion and the very reason it cannot and should not be held to the same scrutiny as science (as the OP suggests).

yes, but any such views without going through the scientific method therefore should not hold any factual values. they can still have moral values, but without falsifiability and the prediction of outcomes, it therefore CANNOT go through the scientific method and holds no meaning. God is unfalsifiable, as is the sphaghetti monster, so why should god hold more validity than the sphaghetti monster?

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

No, sir. Only if the claim can be tested does it need provable facts to support its claim. The instant a construct is introduced, a scientist must throw up his hands and proclaim, "I want nothing to do with this!"

the thing is, does a construct hold any factual value at all? it their claims will not and CANNOT be tested or backed up by facts?

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Tell a group of philosophers, theologians, and metaphysicists to prove the existence of God and they'll get hard to work, mounting piles upon piles of (religious) evidence for and against it.

Tell a group of scientists to prove the existence of God and they'll sit on their hands.

That's how it should be, too. As soon as you attempt to falsify or verify a construct, you have left the realm of science.

a contruct need not be falsified because it has never been proven, burden of proof. many theologians have tried to prove the existance of god, but will always end up in circular logic by religious proofs.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

And yes, proponents who would have ID taught in science classes (do note that distinction; there's nothing wrong with teaching ID in school, so long as it's taught in some sort of religious studies class and not in a science class) are making the same grave error as those who somehow think that science and evolution can disprove the Bible. Those are both disgusting claims that have absolutely no intellectual merit.

yes not in science class, which is where ID proponents are attempting. i don't see how you can say evolution doesn't disprove the literal creation. that is why some theists have adapted to what they called theistic evolution, where god help set it in motion. however, there isn't an "insert god-like figure here" in the theory of evolution, and since evolution and creation (in its literal sense) overlap the same area but are contradicting in every way possible. i'd have to say evolution disproved creation (creation is falsifiable, just that God isn't)

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

I'll also point out that your example of the ID-in-school has no bearing on my statement that it addressed. Just because some religious people don't understand science and thus claim that they do interfere with each other doesn't mean that they actually do.

so you say for them to attempt to establish creation as a scientific contraversy to evolution renaming it ID still doesn't interfere with each other...

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Carefulcarefulcareful with your terminology here. Firstly, you're making a very broad generalization of ID there, and I'd encourage you to find out more about the various types of ID and what the different types claim before blanketing them all together. ID is religious in nature, and thus based on a construct (not scientific in nature). Pseudoscience is reserved for those beliefs that claim to be scientific nature, but have failed to hold up to scientific rigor (astrology, chiropractics, acupuncture, homeopathy, telekinesis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The unequivocal

consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience...

The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[19] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Ahh, here we open up a new door to another very important distinction between science and religion, one of truth.

Ask a Christian how the universe actually came into existence. The likely response? "God created it."

Ask a scientist the same question, and his first words should be, "I don't know." That should, however, be followed by, "But the evidence suggests that..."

Science cannot tell you what actually happened; all it can do is show you what all the evidence suggests. Hypotheses are formed, refuted, revamped, and supported as more facts and evidence are presented. This can lead to a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence that points to one extremely likely outcome, but can science ever be 100% sure? No. It can be so sure that you'd be a fool to not believe the evidence, but it cannot be certain.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to know the truth. It DOES make those claims of 100% certainty.

to accept the fact that we don't know is better than to plug the gap with "Goddidit". the answer god did it has no meaning in itself, just as the answer "it's magic". in science we'll never be 100% sure, only so certain after rigorous testing and peer reviews. for christians to say they're 100% certain that god is the answer is just plain ignorant to me. one cannot be 100% certain even with MOUNTAINS of proofs, yet they claim they are based on their faith. and philosophically speaking one cannot be 100% certain of anything as that is intellectual dishonesty and being "close-minded" (and a theory 'proving' you can't be 100% certain)

[devonin]

the answer god did it has no meaning in itself

Only to a non-religious person, and that is the distinction you keep insisting on ignoring.

[chopperdudes]

Originally Posted by devonin

Only to a non-religious person, and that is the distinction you keep insisting on ignoring.

i'm not making a distinction between religious and non-religious, i'm just saying it has no factual meaning or useful for any kind of prediction or answering any question.

differentiate "god did it" with "it's magic"?

and i'm not talking bout moral values here, as that is a totally differnet debate.

[devonin]

differentiate "god did it" with "it's magic"?

They believe God exists, they don't believe in magic. God to them is a specific construct with specific qualities in which they have invested a great deal of personal faith and belief. Magic is a random term that covers absoluetly everything that an individual person happens to not understand.

i'm just saying it has no factual meaning or useful for any kind of prediction or answering any question.

You're defining 'factual' as meaning 'provable by experimentation and observation' Given that definition, no right-thinking religious person would ever say their belief was factual, so I'm not seeing why this causes such a problem for you.

Let me reiterate: You are holding something to a standard it has never claimed to meet, and then denigrating that something for its failure to meet a standard that, again, it has never claimed to meet.

Taking the opinion statement of fanatics or fundamentalists as being indicative of the whole group is an incredible generalization. If you asked most religious people to prove their belief they would say "I (Note the use of I in that statement) don't need proof."

You clearly do need proof, and that is clearly why you are not a religious person. If you were religious and true to your beliefs, you would simply believe them. That's all there is to it.

"For people who like that sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like"

[iceefudgesickle]

When one openly attacks a religion, they're thought of as rude? You joking? People BLATANTLY DESPISE religion, specifically Christianity, in this country, and religion is under copius amounts of scrutiny.

[Afrobean]

quick question about faith in regards to debate:

If I were trying to tell people that guns should be allowed in schools, could I tell them that I had faith that nothing bad would happen? Because I do. I have faith that if teachers were allowed to have guns in school, that them having them would not cause any trouble. I am an atheist, but I have faith in that ideal. With my faith, that means I'm "right" and since it's "faith", it can't be questioned, right?

...

In OTHER WORDS, faith cannot possibly be admissible in intelligent discussion because it's fundamentally broken. You can believe whatever you like, but you can't use your unfounded beliefs to support (or even to denounce) arguments in a discussion. If unfounded beliefs were admissible in debates, it'd be a volley with people throwing ridiculous **** back and fourth with no regard to logic, deduction, or, to be frank, intelligence.

This is why we have the rule of no religion discussion here. What happened? Why are these things allowed now?