How? The scientific method could definitly be applied to the questions you mention. You can examine how people react during death, you can examine the effects of a soul in the body, you could observe the effects of a god interacting with the physical world, you could see the claims religions have effect reality and the world around us. The only reason we can't scientifically study the questions is that not a single of those physical interactions exist. There has yet to be any evidence of anything beyond the physical world. Lets also not forget that scientists can study the subjective, they can study how people feel, how people act, how people react. We can study feelings, we can study perspectives, we can study how humans interact with one another. Again, it all falls down to the point that there is no solid evidence for religion, in any form. Anything that would indicate there being something more falls flat. There is no visible point in death that a soul leaves the body, those brought back to life report no experience with the afterlife, and when they do, the things they report are depictions they have been taught from childhood. People who feel their prayers are being answered always find that it was bias in perception. Science can study gravity, after all, when we haven't really been able to see anything but the effects of it. We can study galaxies millions of miles away, without ever coming close to interacting with them. We can study the effects of particles so tiny that they are smaller than the very things we use to observe the world. Why can't we find a soul? Something that makes up the entire part of conscious existence? Why can't we find evidence of a god, and instead we find evidence of a universe we grew to fit in with, rather than one tuned for us. While it is absolutely true that it is possible something is missing, that the spiritual is truly, entirely, disconnected from reality, I have to ask, what's the point of the spiritual in that case? What does the spirit do when we find that all our thoughts, our actions, etc, are found and can be modified through the firing of neurons in the mind? I am dodging the point a bit there, and saying why I think the idea that science cannot study a god is a point that doesn't hold. You are entirely correct in saying that science cannot disprove something or prove something that is unable to be studied. However, I can't do much to that little nagging voice in my head saying "what's the difference between that and spirituality not existing at all?". I tried getting around it for years, going so far as to label God as a simulator for the whole universe, and our immoral actions were forcing this God to simulate immoral actions, which creates the narrative needed for why sin is bad. It may be a personal thing, but I am not happy with having faith. I can not, and will never be. And I don't trust those who do to inform me about how the world works, and how I should make my decisions when basing them on their faith. (In other matters, such as experience with interactions, life, etc, I would absolutely take advice). Well, yes, because I believe my point of view is the correct one. I believe the point of debate is to hone and kill ideas that do not hold up. To refine and strengthen your own views, as much as it is about changing those views of others. I regularly go to places to argue and argue for days-lasting conversations online, because I find it an activity that is important to keep yourself informed. I often come away from a good argument thinking "I really was wrong there". That's the end point, even if it doesn't change others opinion. If I seeked the spread of my idea, I would target the weak, I would target children, I would indoctrinate, I would scare. That isn't my goal. People believe and think things for different reasons. I am sure you also believe I am missing something, that I am uninformed, mislead, that I do not see the truth. If you believed in what you think is true, it must be for a reason, and it must be for a reason that I either do not accept for what you view as under false reason, or I am not aware of.A question that does not follow this pattern is a non-scientific question. Questions like "Is there a God?" and "Where do we go when we die?" are non-scientific questions because the scientific method cannot be applied to them.
You enter the conversation with one approved outcome: to convert the other person to think as you do. I do not enjoy this.
I also do not enjoy the idea that holding a different opinion automatically proves a lack of understanding the subject.
I say "Religion and spirituality cannot be proven or disproved." You say "Yes, of course they can." I say 'No, they cannot." You say "Yes, they can." At this point I have nothing else to say on that matter. The point of debate is to present your points and let the listener decide. At the beginning of the discussion, you forced your idea upon me. "This is the right idea! Other ideas are inherently wrong!" No, I do not. I think that you hold your own opinion. I also think that you express your opinion in a rude way. However, I have given a circle to this post because in this post you explain how you feel (mostly) without looking down on other views. I feel that we come to our opinions on this subject from different mindsets. You come from a more logical, scientific mindset. I come from a more emotional, spiritual mindset. We have been collided from the start of discussion to disagree. I do not know how to explain to you how I feel because you would scoff at my thoughts. I have no evidence, no proof, no things that could be listed but my view. My view cannot be quantified. That is very much the point. Nobody knows. Some people think they know. People do not agree.I am sure that you also believe I am missing something, that I am uninformed
I can't do much to that little nagging voice in my head saying "what's the difference between that and spirituality not existing at all?
And why would I hold an opinion different than you if we were both equally informed and equally correct? I agree! I tend to avoid doing any voting or sharing when involved in any debate, but an eye for an eye. I don't mean to be... even more of an ass here, but I did say this earlier: (I can't get this to go into a quote, the site keeps excaping my bar character | by putting a \ before it.) And, honestly, once it gets down to that point, there is no longer a possibility of debate.No, I do not. I think that you hold your own opinion.
I also think that you express your opinion in a rude way
I have given a circle to this post because in this post you explain how you feel (mostly) without looking down on other views.
I come from a more emotional, spiritual mindset. We have been collided from the start of discussion to disagree.
reducing things to the final-endpoint of every other atheism vs theism debate I have seen. "I feel this is true, and you should respect my opinions. Evidence does not mean what I think is not true, science does not give me a reason to live".
That is a very bad and biased explanation of the endpoint, but it's the one I have seen happen over and over. |
It is okay. I have done well with this post by reading quotes as you and material as quotes. Because two people can look at information and view it in different ways. This is because, going back to a previous statement, this question is not a scientific question. There is no "correct answer," and there is no way to be correct. It is only a matter of opinion. People can have different opinions even on important things. That is okay. I do not understand your "final endpoint". What does "science does not give me a reason to live" refer to?And why would I hold an opinion different than you if we were both equally informed and equally correct?
My concern with religion is one of truth. Is there a deity, is there a spirit, is there metaphysics. To that question, there is only one answer. I do understand that you can look at things from the viewpoint that objective reality is not all there is, and that there can be something beyond that we cannot see, that we cannot detect, etc, and you feel it is there, you feel it is real. However, I view that as wrong, just as you probably view the fact that I do not see or believe in anything beyond the physical as wrong.