0
   

Do any religions have any kind of checks and balances

 
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 02:21 pm
I am new to the philosophy of religion and was wondering if religions have any kind of checks and balances to make sure that they know what they are teaching is correct?

From what I understand science does! Example, We know that individual scientist are bias, hopefull and cant be trusted to be objective and that is why science has built in systems to protect scientist from their own subjectivity, That is why they have double blind expiriments and do peer reviews.
Scientist know that they are just as foulable as anyone else as they are so eager to get their hypothesis proven. This is why they have all of these methods to protect them from their own credulity.Smile
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,374 • Replies: 50
No top replies

 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 02:41 pm
@reasoning logic,
You're right about science, and the reasons why are also why I feel a bit frustrated with people who claim that scientific theories are articles of faith or religions in and of themselves. What differentiates them is that they are the result of a self-correcting tendancy that positively benefits from skepticism.

Religion cannot self-check in such a manner because it portends to illuminate the unknowable, though you might veiw synods and reforms in a similar sort of light.

I do think religions operate on an unconscious sort of manner in this regard too - that stronger metaphores, or illustrations of divinity more suiting a particular culture or situation tend to flourish in comparison to less appealling notions.

So a canny prophet or preacher can tap into the ideas he or she feels their audience will most resonate to. As a result you tend to see an evolution of religion that sheds it's clunkier aspects (for example the recent removal of limbo from catholic doctrine).
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 09:53 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;162191 wrote:
I am new to the philosophy of religion and was wondering if religions have any kind of checks and balances to make sure that they know what they are teaching is correct?

From what I understand science does! Example, We know that individual scientist are bias, hopefull and cant be trusted to be objective and that is why science has built in systems to protect scientist from their own subjectivity, That is why they have double blind expiriments and do peer reviews.
Scientist know that they are just as foulable as anyone else as they are so eager to get their hypothesis proven. This is why they have all of these methods to protect them from their own credulity.Smile

I think they do, naturally...They all say the others are full of shet, which means they are all full of shet...
0 Replies
 
Extrain
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 01:34 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;162191 wrote:
From what I understand science does! Example, We know that individual scientist are bias, hopefull and cant be trusted to be objective and that is why science has built in systems to protect scientist from their own subjectivity, That is why they have double blind expiriments and do peer reviews.
Scientist know that they are just as foulable as anyone else as they are so eager to get their hypothesis proven. This is why they have all of these methods to protect them from their own credulity.Smile


But what do we do when the entire scientific community is biased? So called "scientific objectivity," when relativized to the current accepted scientific paradigm of the day, is actually very subjective, personal, social, and normative--not "factual." Scientists time and again will maintain their theories in spite of disconfirming evidence against those theories.

We see this all the time when a scientific theory is faced with disconfirming evidence in such a way that mainstream scientists will actually blame a failed experiment on the alleged mistake of the researcher, and not as a result of a fundamental flaw of the accepted scientific theory itself. As anomalous results in failed experiments build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which replaces the old, is accepted.

I'm sure you don't just blindly accept as true what most scientists say in a given time period just because most of them happen to think a certain way at that time. Theories of old are always being discarded in favor of new theories.

Thomas Kuhn, a physicist and engineer, famously made the strong case in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) that science is highly subjective, certainly much more than we think. Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Quote:
In his essay, Kuhn reiterates five criteria from the penultimate chapter of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions that determine (or help determine, more properly) theory choice:
  1. - Accurate - empirically adequate with experimentation and observation
  2. - Consistent - internally consistent, but also externally consistent with other theories
  3. - Broad Scope - a theory's consequences should extend beyond that which it was initially designed to explain
  4. - Simple - the simplest explanation, principally similar to Occam's Razor
  5. - Fruitful - a theory should disclose new phenomena or new relationships among phenomena
He then goes on to show how, although these criteria admittedly determine theory choice, they are imprecise in practice and relative to individual scientists. According to Kuhn, "When scientists must choose between competing theories, two men fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions."[5] For this reason, basically, the criteria still are not "objective" in the usual sense of the word because individual scientists reach different conclusions with the same criteria due to valuing one criterion over another or even adding additional criteria for selfish or other subjective reasons. Kuhn then goes on to say, "I am suggesting, of course, that the criteria of choice with which I began function not as rules, which determine choice, but as values, which influence it."[5] Because Kuhn utilizes the history of science in his account of science, his criteria or values for theory choice are often understood as descriptive normative rules (or more properly, values) of theory choice for the scientific community rather than prescriptive normative rules in the usual sense of the word "criteria."
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 02:21 am
@reasoning logic,
Buddhism - which may or may not be defined as 'religion', depending on how you define the term - is based on the understanding and application of principles. You are able to verify these principles by their results in your own life. For this reason it is said of the Buddhist teaching 'ehipassiko' - in other words, 'come and see for yourself'.

More broadly speaking, if religions are understood as a form of practice which the believer puts to work in order to realize a more altruistic and other-centred way of living, then there are many ways in which this can be said to contain 'checks and balances'. Again the practitioner is able to see for him/herself the beneficial results that are associated with this practice, (even if part of the practice is not to be concerned with seeking benefits.)

A lot of the disputes that arise in regards to this question come from considering religious dogmas in the abstract, as kind of propositions or statements about the universe at large. In fact the real meaning of religious practice is arguably not really seen outside of the community of the faithful and the liturgical and other devotional elements which have a directly measurable result on the lives of practitioners.

This is why much to the bafflement of your so-called 'scientific skeptics' most people remain, in fact, religious.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 06:56 PM ----------

none of which is to deny that religious doctrines don't change, and don't have to change, in keeping with new discoveries about the world, etc. And some of them are much better at this than others.
0 Replies
 
Klope3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:53 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;162191 wrote:
I am new to the philosophy of religion and was wondering if religions have any kind of checks and balances to make sure that they know what they are teaching is correct?

From what I understand science does! Example, We know that individual scientist are bias, hopefull and cant be trusted to be objective and that is why science has built in systems to protect scientist from their own subjectivity, That is why they have double blind expiriments and do peer reviews.
Scientist know that they are just as foulable as anyone else as they are so eager to get their hypothesis proven. This is why they have all of these methods to protect them from their own credulity.Smile


I would say that the thoughtful followers of a religion would be that religion's checks and balances. Or, perhaps, everyone must use their own sense/agree with someone else's sense in deciding to follow a particular religion.
0 Replies
 
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 10:58 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;162191 wrote:
I am new to the philosophy of religion and was wondering if religions have any kind of checks and balances to make sure that they know what they are teaching is correct?

From what I understand science does! Example, We know that individual scientist are bias, hopefull and cant be trusted to be objective and that is why science has built in systems to protect scientist from their own subjectivity, That is why they have double blind expiriments and do peer reviews.
Scientist know that they are just as foulable as anyone else as they are so eager to get their hypothesis proven. This is why they have all of these methods to protect them from their own credulity.Smile


Science and religion have two very different goals. Religion talks about the origin of creation whereas science merely describes what creation is not.

Science does not demonstrate what is true so much as it rejects what is false.

Bit science is just as subjective. For instance, you probably believe in the standard model of the universe, the big bang and all that. Well, somebody made a guess that the universe began with a bang and everybody just went with it. Then science proved that that theory was wrong so scientists invented other theories and inserted them into the standard model to keep adjusting it to make it work. Now we have things like inflation and dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow. None of which are demonstrable but with their imaginary properties they make what we want to believe is true work. Thats science, pretty much the same as religion in the sense that what someone wants to be real will be real until somebody else proves them wrong.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:34 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;162191 wrote:
I am new to the philosophy of religion and was wondering if religions have any kind of checks and balances to make sure that they know what they are teaching is correct?

From what I understand science does! Example, We know that individual scientist are bias, hopefull and cant be trusted to be objective and that is why science has built in systems to protect scientist from their own subjectivity, That is why they have double blind expiriments and do peer reviews.
Scientist know that they are just as foulable as anyone else as they are so eager to get their hypothesis proven. This is why they have all of these methods to protect them from their own credulity.Smile
Most religions are based on old writings, which are re-interpeted, thus it is vunerable to demagogues. Corretness dies before popularity, most religious leaders realize that survival and interest comes before anything else, that they must preach what the followers wants to hear, in order to stay competetive with other religions.

I see christinaity 1 of the most drasticly changeing religions, that will preach anything ..which I find quite sad.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 05:49 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;167546 wrote:
Science and religion have two very different goals. Religion talks about the origin of creation whereas science merely describes what creation is not.

Science does not demonstrate what is true so much as it rejects what is false.

Bit science is just as subjective. For instance, you probably believe in the standard model of the universe, the big bang and all that. Well, somebody made a guess that the universe began with a bang and everybody just went with it. Then science proved that that theory was wrong so scientists invented other theories and inserted them into the standard model to keep adjusting it to make it work. Now we have things like inflation and dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow. None of which are demonstrable but with their imaginary properties they make what we want to believe is true work. Thats science, pretty much the same as religion in the sense that what someone wants to be real will be real until somebody else proves them wrong.

Not just as subjective... Because science really deals with a finite existence it never has to ask what lies beyond, what came before, so it never has to go out on a limb of mindless speculation...
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 12:49 pm
@Fido,
Fido;167637 wrote:
Not just as subjective... Because science really deals with a finite existence it never has to ask what lies beyond, what came before, so it never has to go out on a limb of mindless speculation...


...and can never answer any truly important questions. The only thing science does is guess at the PHYSICAL qualities of the universe. Nothing more.

If all you are looking for is the latest guess at the physical qualities of the universe, then science is the religion for you. However, if you're interests are on an intellectual nature, then science can do nothing for you.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 08:02 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;168159 wrote:
...and can never answer any truly important questions. The only thing science does is guess at the PHYSICAL qualities of the universe. Nothing more.

If all you are looking for is the latest guess at the physical qualities of the universe, then science is the religion for you. However, if you're interests are on an intellectual nature, then science can do nothing for you.

I am certain you have it wrong... science is not religion, but religion was once science... The first thing people have always needed was a theory, and pity those people who had nothing better to explain nature than supernatural agency..
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 08:11 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;167546 wrote:
Bit science is just as subjective. For instance, you probably believe in the standard model of the universe, the big bang and all that. Well, somebody made a guess that the universe began with a bang and everybody just went with it.


No this is a lie. First of all, the big bang was used as a derogatory term to give discredit to any one who (at the time) did not follow with the static state theory. So as you are trying to claim, it was not widely accepted at all. The idea of the universe coming from a singularity was mocked and ridiculed by a majority of the scientific community. It wasn't until more evidence was collected that the theory started to seem far more plausible than a static state.

Educate yourself or keep your lies to yourself.
0 Replies
 
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 09:03 pm
@Fido,
Fido;168368 wrote:
I am certain you have it wrong... science is not religion, but religion was once science... The first thing people have always needed was a theory, and pity those people who had nothing better to explain nature than supernatural agency..


No. I am right. Quite. Science is most definitely a religion. It sprang from the loins of religion and has billions of devotees, and millions of priests worldwide.

Ask any devotee how the world was created and they will say it was in a big bang, and yet there is no evidence for that. Ask a priest how the world as created and he will weave a tale of mysterious things, magical energies and divine spirit (of course he will use terms like dark, matter, dark energy, and dark flow)

Ask the devotees and the priests about their sacred scriptures and they will give you volumes of equations in their own divinely inspired language and they will die before they foresake the knowledge therein. And yet, without the magical deity they worship, the Higgins Boson, all their equations fall apart, clearly not represented by the creation we all behold.

Yes, Science most definitely is a religion.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 08:05 PM ----------

Krumple;168374 wrote:
No this is a lie. First of all, the big bang was used as a derogatory term to give discredit to any one who (at the time) did not follow with the static state theory. So as you are trying to claim, it was not widely accepted at all. The idea of the universe coming from a singularity was mocked and ridiculed by a majority of the scientific community. It wasn't until more evidence was collected that the theory started to seem far more plausible than a static state.

Educate yourself or keep your lies to yourself.


You obviously have no understanding of the Standard Model. Try reading a book every once in a while instead of blindly following your priests.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 10:55 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;168384 wrote:
You obviously have no understanding of the Standard Model. Try reading a book every once in a while instead of blindly following your priests.


1 The original term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle in an interview on BBC radio. He used the term originally in a derogatory sense to set it off from the theory that he himself held to at that time, the "Steady State Theory." The term "Big Bang," however, stuck.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 04:51 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;168384 wrote:
No. I am right. Quite. Science is most definitely a religion. It sprang from the loins of religion and has billions of devotees, and millions of priests worldwide.

Ask any devotee how the world was created and they will say it was in a big bang, and yet there is no evidence for that. Ask a priest how the world as created and he will weave a tale of mysterious things, magical energies and divine spirit (of course he will use terms like dark, matter, dark energy, and dark flow)

Ask the devotees and the priests about their sacred scriptures and they will give you volumes of equations in their own divinely inspired language and they will die before they foresake the knowledge therein. And yet, without the magical deity they worship, the Higgins Boson, all their equations fall apart, clearly not represented by the creation we all behold.

Yes, Science most definitely is a religion.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 08:05 PM ----------

So what??? It came from religion, but religion was once all that science is...It gave people the feeling of power over nature, so that people could go on without fear...But to say it sprung from the loins of is pure Cant... When talking of living beings, biology, one can justly say Genus and Species... In time we see forms, or ideas, some out of time, and some before, some often related, and a few without clear precident... Religion was the first science, but since we have science it is religion which has changed... There is theory in religion but but no rational investigation or experiment... All there is, is testimony... They have the moral argument, and they give it away with their grasping after raw political power...But look at morals and you find it is religion that rides on morals, and not the other way around... It is like Christianity picking up pagan holidays on its way to the conquest of Europe...It did not directly attack the pagan spirtuality or customs; but worked on them gradually...If there were no religion, there would still need to be morals... But there is a big difference between demanding faith without evidence, or before evidence, and offering evidence and asking for no more faith than is necessary to support insight...
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 08:48 am
@Fido,
Fido;168503 wrote:
So what??? It came from religion, but religion was once all that science is...It gave people the feeling of power over nature, so that people could go on without fear...But to say it sprung from the loins of is pure Cant... When talking of living beings, biology, one can justly say Genus and Species... In time we see forms, or ideas, some out of time, and some before, some often related, and a few without clear precident... Religion was the first science, but since we have science it is religion which has changed... There is theory in religion but but no rational investigation or experiment... All there is, is testimony... They have the moral argument, and they give it away with their grasping after raw political power...But look at morals and you find it is religion that rides on morals, and not the other way around... It is like Christianity picking up pagan holidays on its way to the conquest of Europe...It did not directly attack the pagan spirtuality or customs; but worked on them gradually...If there were no religion, there would still need to be morals... But there is a big difference between demanding faith without evidence, or before evidence, and offering evidence and asking for no more faith than is necessary to support insight...



Well you of course are entitled to your OPINION. However, since you are clearly a devotee of the cult of Science, you opinion means little. You sound like every other zealot whose faith has been shaken.

Ask your cult for evidence for their magical entities. Such as the Higgins Boson and all the made up "Dark" things they have no proof for. Your cult is absolutely no different than any other. The one key difference is that YOU have been brainwashed by this particular one.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 07:50 AM ----------

Krumple;168405 wrote:
1 The original term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle in an interview on BBC radio. He used the term originally in a derogatory sense to set it off from the theory that he himself held to at that time, the "Steady State Theory." The term "Big Bang," however, stuck.


Nice straw man argument but you clearly are sidestepping an issue you have no knowledge of other than wikipedia. You will have to do better than that.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:49 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;168573 wrote:
Nice straw man argument but you clearly are sidestepping an issue you have no knowledge of other than wikipedia. You will have to do better than that.


Well first of all, how is it a straw man argument? I say if anything you have just used a strawman against me making that claim.

Funny how you don't consider this a strawman but you will gladly accuse me of it?

"You obviously have no understanding of the Standard Model. Try reading a book every once in a while instead of blindly following your priests."

Secondly, I didn't get that quote from Wikipedia. Third the statement I made is very common knowledge that I pointed out to refute your claim that someone just came up with the big bang theory and everyone went along with it. Simply was not true and I tried to educate you a little on the history of how it came to be.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 11:55 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;168573 wrote:
Well you of course are entitled to your OPINION. However, since you are clearly a devotee of the cult of Science, you opinion means little. You sound like every other zealot whose faith has been shaken.

Ask your cult for evidence for their magical entities. Such as the Higgins Boson and all the made up "Dark" things they have no proof for. Your cult is absolutely no different than any other. The one key difference is that YOU have been brainwashed by this particular one.

-


Even the Pope, when he gets sick will call a doctor...Maybe that would work for you...

You know, that if you push science to the edge of knowledge, into theoretical physics for example, you might find some conclusions that are insupportable...Galaleo was once there... The Greeks were there a thousand years before the instraments that might show them right or wrong... Would you argue that the physical arts do not work as intended in our practical world??? Sure it over promises and under delivers... The real problem with science, math and logic in particular is that when it is turned onto moral reality it adds next to nothing of our understanding of mankind, our forms and relationships... We are not clockwork oranges..
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 07:34 pm
@Fido,
Fido;168619 wrote:
Even the Pope, when he gets sick will call a doctor...Maybe that would work for you...

You know, that if you push science to the edge of knowledge, into theoretical physics for example, you might find some conclusions that are insupportable...Galaleo was once there... The Greeks were there a thousand years before the instraments that might show them right or wrong... Would you argue that the physical arts do not work as intended in our practical world??? Sure it over promises and under delivers... The real problem with science, math and logic in particular is that when it is turned onto moral reality it adds next to nothing of our understanding of mankind, our forms and relationships... We are not clockwork oranges..


When followed out, science says that matter has no mass, clearly that is false.

It is true that many of our guesses loosely fit into what is observable in the universe. But when it comes to the origin of the universe, thought, and life, its assumptions clearly require faith in the existence of unknown and mysterious qualities no different than any other religion.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 07:48 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;168851 wrote:
When followed out, science says that matter has no mass, clearly that is false.


Once again, what are you talking about? Where and who are these people who claim that matter has no mass? I want to see where this is stated. I'll go as far as to make the claim that it is only you who is making this claim. Well I suppose if your source are some apologetics then maybe they have convinced you but crack open any science book and you will not find it say matter has no mass. Take a beginners chemistry class and you will learn probably on day one that matter has mass.

trismegisto;168851 wrote:

It is true that many of our guesses loosely fit into what is observable in the universe. But when it comes to the origin of the universe, thought, and life, its assumptions clearly require faith in the existence of unknown and mysterious qualities no different than any other religion.


You might believe this, but the educated have a different approach.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Do any religions have any kind of checks and balances
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 05:52:29