Does 'religion' even qualify to be a 'hypothesis'?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Bishadi, Dec 19, 2011.

  1. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Got the idea from the 'evolution' thread.

    ie.. there is an idiot claiming evolution is just a hypothesis and i was wondering how a religious wingnut could say such a thing.


    Then i realized, religion would not even qualify to be a hypothesis.

    Because there is zero foundations for the qualifying let alone to quantifying.

    Religious adherance is strictly subjective to opinion.
     
  2. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Religions can be. We've already disproved all the religions that currently exist.

    Religions make claims. Christianity claims that praying works. The whole creation story bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Stuff like that. All shown to be asbolute nonsense.
     
  3. junobet

    junobet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Only small fringe groups of Christianity believe that the bible is inerrant and to be taken literally in every word. When it comes to the creation story and the perceived conflict to evolution "major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures" will tell you that the creation story is to be understood allegorically and point you to the concept of "theistic evolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution).
    And most Christians I know will tell you that while they may wish to pray that their football-team wins, there's no guarantee that their prayer will "work".

    The existance of God can neither be proven nor disproven. In that sense it can't constitute a workable scientific hypothesis. Just as Dawkings idea of "Memetics" can't.
    :rolleyes:
     
  4. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Praying does work. But that doesn't mean you get what you want. Why is it that people want to compare science and religion as if they were in the same category? In reality, both should be able to coexist. You are talking about two different halves of the universe. In reality, there is no confliction between religion and science. Maybe these nutbag over the top christians that take things WAY too literally, but regular religion should be able to coexist with science just fine.
     
  5. TBryant

    TBryant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Science and faith don't mix well, but strictly speaking I guess the world could be seen as limited evidence of a creator god. Limited evidence is all you need to form a hypothesis. Speculation about the nature of the creator does not qualify.
     
  6. dcaddy

    dcaddy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Religion has it's uses to certain people. I personally know someone who changed his life because of it. And although I'm always happy to engage in a religion debate I will never discuss the topic with this person. Right or wrong it saved his life.

    But in short no, religion deals with supernatural things that science does not even attempt to concern itself with.
     
  7. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    heroine save lives
     
  8. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    then the world is 'limited evidence' of jrr tolkien's middle earth

    "Speculation about the nature of the creator" is what science is. Describing nature itself, is the science describing 'god' (nature itself, is our creator)


    My question is, does 'religion' even quality to be a hypothesis?

    ie..... if no one can produce evidence of where 'the belief' came from, then what is a religion but a human creation. Basically; the 'god' of the wingnuts, is manmade, where-as the 'god' of science is mother nature, our creator.


    The religions dont quality to even be considered in theory.

    science, has roots in reality
     
  9. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not a hypothesis, merely a conjecture at best. Though even a conjecture is "thought to be true".
    Perhaps a supposition best describes it, as " the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof."
     
  10. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well it is HISTORICAL fact that a Jesus walked the Earth when the Bible said it did. What I want to know is why something that isn't a science should have to be a 'hypothesis'. If your just trying to bash religion fine, but don't pretend religion is a science. Religion is a history. Histories have theories, or myths. They do not have hypotheses.
     
  11. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    strange comment.

    Your post is something to study, in itself.

    I know better.

    it would be like claiming star trek is prophetic
    I like that. "Religion, is a history. " Kind of like; "religion, You're outa here!!!!"

    So was eve from adams rib?

    Did the whole earth flood and noah saved 2 of every species?

    Did god put the world into judgment day?
     
  12. Sooner28

    Sooner28 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most of the time a scientific hypothesis needs to be verifiable (observations showing something is true), falsifiable (observations that almost definitely disprove something, and repeatable (so this gives us some level of predictability, such as in medicine). Some specific claims within a religion may be hypotheses, since observation would make a difference, such as God answering prayers. But as to whether God created the world, eh. Even if true, I don't see it as a scientific question. You can't observe God at all. You can only attempt to indirectly infer the existence of such a being.
     
  13. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Religion is a mythology, not history. Even the mythology have some historic facts, something that is based in some past event, but not more than that. That is of the realm of the imagination.
     
  14. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i can agree

    for example: LIFE: abuses entropy (a reversal of what many believe)

    since 'god' is nature itself, then god did create the world; acreation
    sure you can: HE is the garden and even Einstein was per se 'trying to catch him at his work'

    i know him (he is a her; mother nature itself)
     
  15. Silence_Dogood

    Silence_Dogood New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it does not. A hypothesis, by definition, must be falsifiable.

    "God exists because the Bible says so" is not a falsifiable claim.

    In other words, you have to be able to gather evidence in favor/opposition of your hypothesis.

    For example: "The sky is blue" is a hypothesis, because you are able to gather information regarding the validity of the claim.

    "Darth Vader controls the Kremlin from a secret base on the moon" is not a hypothesis, because there is absolutely no way that you can test this claim.

    Religion is, unfortunately, not very much unlike this latter claim.
     
  16. Sooner28

    Sooner28 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you saying that any claims that are not scientific in nature are meaningless gibberish?
     
  17. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The claim emphasized in red text above is a false claim. The 'sky' is not "blue". The color blue is merely a phenomena created by light (from one end of the spectrum to the opposite end) passing through the atmosphere and having a perceptive effect upon the retina of the eyes. Therefore, that color 'blue' is merely a perception... something that is subjective.
     
  18. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Using that logic, everything we see is a perception and therefore a "false claim" according to you.
     
  19. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And because scientists have a primary dependence upon that same realm (the imagination) in attaining all of the GREAT WONDERS of science, then it can be and should be properly stated that science is nothing more than a modern day religion that is dependent upon the realm of imagination. You cannot name even one claim made by the scientific community which does not have its roots in the realm of the imagination.
     
  20. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh, primarily science relies on observations of the Universe, not the imagination.
     
  21. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Accept my challenge then and name one item that is attributed to scientific creativity which did not involve that realm of the imagination.
     
  22. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is your definition of scientific creativity? And one item is referring to what? A hypothesis? A theory?
     
  23. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hilarious!!

    Where is this proof and pass the Dawkins coolaide please.
     
  24. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There has been a study about the effects of praying on hospital patients. Actually, quite a few. A more recent one showed that people who knew they were being prayed for developed more post-surgery complications.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all
     
  25. montra

    montra New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, I know nothing about the prayers in question and know nothing about who were praying. For example, what if Adolph Hitler was doing all the praying? In addition, Jesus himself had a prayer go unanswered as he prayed to the Father to spare him from the cross. He got no answer. Did Jesus then prove that God does not exist? No.

    I can show you studies where those who practice a particular religion and, presumingly pray, are happier and tend to live longer lives. Are the two related or does this only work one way in your mind?
     

Share This Page