Do any religions have any kind of checks and balances

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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...

...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.

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.

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 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.

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...

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.

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..

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.