Wrong. The scientific method is a process for experimentation and it most certainly can be applied to religion and the supernatural. You don't understand the scientific method. In general the scientific method involves observation of phenomenon, formulation of a hypothesis, use of the hypothesis to predict experimental outcomes, independent review and testing of the hypothesis. It can be used to test the effectiveness of prayer on third parties, meditation or religious practice on a persons health and mental well being, religious faith versus success and failure in life, a persons ability to predict the future, ESP. People can and have applied the scientific methods to all of these issues and more. Sometimes the answers are clear and affirmative (meditation/prayer does improve health and well being). Sometimes they are clear and negative (astrology cannot predict the future). Sometimes the result is inconclusive (religious faith versus success/failure). Some issues cannot be addressed because of a lack of observed phenomenon and/or the inability to do experiments. For example, extraterrestrial life. Religion/faith is a human trait and it can be studied just like any other human trait, the fields which study these areas even have names you may have heard before - psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, history, economics.
I disagree. I see a very vocal, hostile, UNSCIENTIFIC segment of the population becoming increasingly bigoted toward anything remotely 'Christian!' Even the obvious 'religious' nature of atheism is shrouded in pseudoscientific terms, in an attempt to justify plain old religious bigotry. There is no conflict between faith and science. ..never has been. ..never will. The conflict that is evident in the public discourse is old fashioned religio/ideological bigotry. It is 'faith vs faith', not science. Scientific endeavors have been going on for the entire history of humanity. People from all ideological beliefs can practice scientific, empirical research. ..even atheists. ..and even Christians, who were instrumental in the scientific revolution. So the phony narrative of, 'Christians have religion, atheists have science!' Is nothing but an absurd propaganda meme, and is just religious bigotry on display.
I refuted your claim, that people are hostile because 'they deserve it!' That is a bigoted statement, with no evidence. The bigotry CONSTANTLY on display, in the public discourse is justified by demonizing the opposing philosophical belief, and attacking caricatures and straw men. People are hostile because they have been indoctrinated with a caricature of Christianity, and the enmity from progressives and atheistic naturalists spills out from a well of hostile bias based ONLY on the phony caricatures. There is no crime against humanity, from Christianity. It has brought more positives to civilization than any other ideology, in the history of man. The irrational hatred and bigotry expressed by the anti Christians is only due to propaganda and Indoctrination. We are in a post Christian era, where the religion of Progressivism is replacing Christianity, as the majority worldview. I have a thread examining this transition coming up.
Quite right. Blind and lame, is what one becomes, who does not live a mind of balance.. yin/yang.. circumspection.. clarity of thought. The theoretical encompasses a LARGE portion of our lives, whether we recognize it, or not. Very little of our knowledge base is personal, empirically verified fact. Yet some are taught... indoctrinated.. to believe that EVERY bit in their knowledge base is Absolute Truth, and must be defended with jihadist zeal! They lack the introspection to differentiate between beliefs and empiricism, and become religious bigots and dogmatists, without any circumspection. They are Legion, on the forums..
Yes, people have attempted to do what you suggest - testing ESP, etc. But, the results have been just as bad as one might expect if the attempt to do so uses scientific method in any remotely serious way. As for religion, there is no way to test God. It's so impossible to do so that there isn't even a way to prove that gravity isn't just a matter of God moving matter in a way that looks like gravity to us. Any possible effect of meditation/prayer on health and well being can't be proven by science to be due to the supernatural. Your last paragraph is interesting, but the social sciences don't particularly use scientific method. Any testing tends to include no duplication, controls, etc. There are limits on ethical experimentation on humans. They are called "soft sciences" for a reason.
An assault on science (including through an attack on evolution) would cause a defense REGARDLESS of whether YOU happen to be an atheist, a Christian, a Hindu, or whatever. There IS a difference between religion and science. The assumptions, processes and allowed logic are very much different. There isn't any legitimate argument that this difference indicates bigotry. I don't know anyone who has EVER suggested that Christians can't use the tools of science if/when they want to.
There are many tests of ESP, astrology, and related phenomenon, and the tests are quite rigorous and scientific. The results are that those things do not do what they claim. Perhaps you incorrectly equate the correct application of the scientific method to a positive outcome? You cannot test God, because you don't have direct access to and full co-operation from God. You can test humanity's belief in God. You can test the effect of faith and religion. You conflate different issues: is there a relationship between meditation/prayer and the body? Yes. Why does it work? Unknown. The effect of meditation/prayer on an individual is a well researched relationship to the point its often standard treatment in mental health and medical procedures which involve high levels of stress. Why does it work? Thats a different question than "does it work". Is it ESP, supernatural power, the Force, or just the brain taking conscious control of autonomic processes using an as yet undiscovered neural pathway? Very wrong. Social sciences are subject to peer review and the scientific method. Does group therapy for drug abuse treatment work, or is individual therapy better, or is a combination better, and what type of combination? All answerable using data from numerous studies of real world results (experiments are not just in a lab), testable by repeat experiment, and all producing quantitative results. "Hard sciences" can be finely controlled. Those mentioned are called "soft sciences" because they deal with people, and people are difficult and complicated subjects. There are many variables to handle. Social experiments typically cannot be planned and controlled and crafted to the extent that the possible outcomes are predictable and the relationship between stimuli and outcome is assured. But whether hard or soft, the scientific method applies.
Now that’s going too far. There may be instances of scientists being religious but to claim a strong reciprocal relationshiop is absurd. What kind of reciprocal relationship did the Vatican have with Gallileo?
Good point.... but there are many Christian Theologians who would tend to be attracted to much of what former Atheist Mellen Thomas Benedict was shown during his NDE. Others of course..... not so much! https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html His description of The Void.... sure reminds me of Chapter 13 in Stephen Hawking's Universe. https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05
You can design activities that have a positive or negative outcome, but that doesn't particularly mean anything. There isn't any way for falsification, as a negative outcome doesn't prove anything that would be accepted by advocates of the supernatural (ESP, etc.). We see this all the time. We see people "test" ESP (or whatever). It doesn't work. Nobody who previously believed in ESP (or whatever) considers that their ideas have failed. Much to the contrary, they just want to try again. And, if it "works" they want to claim it proves something - but in scientific method a success doesn't "prove" anything. The real issue is proof of falsity, and (again) there is no agreement on what could possibly prove falsity. Science answers "how" questions. A theory describes how a process works. It may seem weird, but THAT it works (at least some percent of the time) isn't the issue - it is HOW it works. You would need to come up with a testable hypothesis concerning HOW prayer works. That's a good description of the difference. And, the result is that they do not have the level of control of scientific method as is present in the hard sciences - physics, chemistry, biology. One result is that there can be significantly different answers to the same question at the same time.
Whether some people agree with the results of a particular test does not invalidate the scientific method, or mean that the method is not applicable. And if people want to repeat the test, or a similar test, or a new test - that's exactly how the scientific method works. People want to know how things work, but the scientific method is not limited to "how". Its applicable to just about any if-then type issue: if people pray for another person, does that other person get better? If a person stares at a card, can another person say what is on that card? If a person is given a vaccine, is the person immune to that illness? None of those address the "how", they just test if there is an effect. You have to know the effects and relationships (you have to have data) before you can address the why it works.
I think you're just indicating a case of religious conversion. That's not really about science (scientific method) in any way, nor is it about how religion responds to science. And, it's not surprising that a theologian might share ideas with a guy who just switched to that theologian's religious views! As I've noted before, NDE's don't require a supernatural explanation. We dream even when our brains are fully healthy. And, in death the dying processes of our sensory organs as well as our brains do not cease instantly nor do they degrade at the same rate.
I disagree, because again there is no way to falsify even just the existence of ESP, let alone answer the standard scientific questions of how it works. And, that is a basic requirement of scientific method. You're right about repetition, but that certainly is not the only issue. Plus, there is the constant failure part, too, of course. Again, I don't agree with this. Every hypothesis has to have the possibility of falsification. There is no way to falsify anything about prayer. EVERY possible failure mode can be (and IS!!) answered by "god works in mysterious ways". Also, there is evidence that positivity can aid recovery. And, for those who believe in the supernatural, crystal pyramids, prayer, chants, etc., may all bring relief. But, again that doesn't indicate the power of the supernatural. It may LOOK like science, but that doesn't mean it is science.
Good points..... but it is interesting how well what near death experiencers report seem to correspond with String Theory....... and the Cyclic Model of the Universe...... and / or Multiverse Theory...... I cannot imagine that these many correlations are mere coincidence?? www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/
The post you quoted was an almost verbatim summary of Einstein's quote linking 'religion & science', for any seeker of truth. He emphasized exactly that: a strong reciprocal relationship. It is because BOTH elements.. the abstract and the experiential; theoretical and empirical; believed and known; intuitive and experimental; faith and science; or however you want to describe these 2 interrelated, reciprocal, human elements.. they are BOTH essential and active in any quest for knowledge. Some people may not recognize them as such, but they are both there, in any human epistemology. Those who try to elevate one over the other, or deny one as a contributing factor of knowledge, move to dogmatism, and become blind or lame. Here are some more quotes from Einstein, where he emphasizes the essential role of 'faith': There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance. The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science. We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Everything we've heard of or could possibly imagine is fully available to our dreams. Theoretical physics is in contrast to experimental science that uses scientific method. The standard process is for these guys to come up with ideas that (hopefully) are at least a consistent mathematical model that includes what we know about physics. Then, maybe some day it will become possible to test using scientific method to determine if it is nonsense or not. That's all. Comparing NDE to that doesn't help either one. And, NDE isn't even slightly constrained by math or physics.
Oh, sure. You would like to claim anything related to intuitive understanding of how our universe works or even just interest in how it works as REQUIRING or even BEING religion. And, that's just ridiculous. Einstein is famous for his intuitive understanding. His thought experiments comprised a strong and novel approach. But, it isn't religion. And, it's not the supernatural. This is just one of the cases of YOU attempting to co-opt science for your religion.
Sorry but I didn't say people are hostile because they deserve it. I gave you a list of good reasons why non Christians resent Christians trying to abridge their rights and you were unable to refute any of them. And there is no evidence that Christianity has brought any positives to civilization as proven conclusively by the fact that you cannot prove your assertion with any actual evidence. But if you want to try instead of just claiming without evidence it will be amusing.
No, this is an example of religious bigotry on display, where you attempt to elevate YOUR beliefs in abstract concepts over the beliefs of others, and label yours 'science!', when they are just your theoretical opinions. Militant atheists have already, 'co-opted' science.. they pretend they are the guardians and defenders of science, but they have merely twisted it into a naturalistic religion, that is lame. Straw men, ridicule, ad hom, distortions, and heckling are the tools of these religious fanatics. They will not, and perhaps CANNOT use real scientific methodology or reason, so they resort to fallacies. Your false accusation of me exposes your bigotry.
Right. No, it seems to me you are well indoctrinated into an anti-christian bias, and no history or reason will sway you. I'll leave you with your beliefs and bigotry. And of course you gave reasons why Christians 'deserved' to be ridiculed and berated, which you demonstrate often on this forum.
Here is another good quotation on the idea of Multiverse Theory..... https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-is-and-isnt-scientific-about-the-multiverse-507aea967db0 What Is (And Isn’t) Scientific About The Multiverse
Thank you. Your tacit admission that my facts are true is greatly appreciated. I also recognize that you, despite your claims, are unable to prove that Christianity has made any significant positive contributions to civilization. But keep believing it anyway if it gives you the warm fuzzys.
If by falsification you mean the relationship fails, then that is present. On ESP, take the famous card reading test in which someone stares at a card and another person tries to tell what is on the card. The person can either tell what is on the card, or cannot. There is a link between these 2 people, or there is not. The hypothesis that these 2 people can communicate without using the normal senses either is not shown or is shown. The same with prayer. Hypothesize that people praying for another person can improve that other persons health. Health is measurable. If you have people pray for a third person to have better health, and don't tell that third person, and then see if that persons health improves. Have a control group. The third persons health either improves or it does not. (That study has been done). So far you have not presented anything which limits the scientific method to "hard sciences". There are issues which cannot be addressed, you cannot test something which is not measurable. God works in mysterious ways is not measurable or testable, there is no way to address that claim without the direct co-operation of God. You can test whether the belief in crystals or a religion or prayers have an impact on people. If you do the test and find that there is a relationship, it is measurable and repeatable, then you can hypothesize the underlying mechanism. There may be several hypotheses to explain the observations, people then have to do experiments to test the ones that are testable. The end result may be "I dont know", and that's very valid, it happens in all fields. Because there are issues in a subject which cannot be addressed does not mean the scientific method cannot be applied to that subject. All fields, hard and soft, have issues which cannot be addressed because humanity does not have the knowledge and/or ability.
This, of course, is such superficial reasoning as can be expected from stereotypical atheists. Experience is a teacher, not an inspirer - which of course is why those who have access to the history of science always outnumber the Einstein-caliber scientists by several orders of magnitude. Swell, thanks for the stupid. If you require an enumeration of all such relationships, you'd have to ask the author - which I daresay would be about as intelligent as challenging Jefferson to provide a complete enumeration of the unalienable rights referred to in the DoI. That aside, at least one of those relationships is described in the rest of the quote. I doubt anything that can rightly be called science leads to that conclusion, if for no other reason than the inability of the observer to distinguish insincere prayer from the real deal. Yeah, well you'd have to take that up with the author, but I'm pretty sure I can anticipate his reaction: Spoiler
