How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Religion very definately doesn't follow the scientific method and so if you are an absolute adherent (religious follower?) of the latter you must dismiss the former.

All well and good , except that I would repeat that although the Golden Rule cannot be proved by the scientific method, how many scientists, let alone the rest of us rubes, say it therefore should not be followed?

Your frustration with the superficiality of A2K believers is noted and usually warranted. It is as valid as mine, though, with A2k non-believers. To be honest, however, the number of the latter far outweighs the number of the former.

I'm the last person who can criticize someone for getting drawn into, or even starting, acrimonious exchanges, but that wasn't a feature of my prior post. I don't see it as much of as a sin but then that could easily be seen as pretty self-serving.

There are one or two believers who are willing and capable of discussing the subject somewhat intelligently, and I would like to think I am one. We need to endeavor to ignore the rest or agree not to comment on our pointless, and self-satisfying, refutations of them.

I definitely prefer our exchange over the ones I've had in the past, Finn. It doesn't bother me in the least that you're a believer and I'm not. That sort of thing in itself has no impact on the way I treat people.

Incidentally, I'm not an absolute adherent in the scientific method. It is inherently inductive and its conclusions tentative and approximate. Hume and others have pointed out that weakness many times over.

I'm convinced that the empirical approach yields more dependable results, however. Not absolute certainty. Greater probability. As soon as a scientific paper is published, other scientists swarm on it and try to disprove it. Arguments from authority/appeals to authority and tradition don't wash, nor are conclusions rejected just because they are unappealing.

The religions that do demand (often blind and unquestioning) obedience to a nominal leader's proclamations, particularly on metaphysical questions, just make me want to ask 'Why?' For example, why should anyone believe that the Pope's word is infallible, since he's been elected God's spokesperson? (just an example) More broadly, when people tell me that the content of their preferred scripture is true, I have to ask, 'How do you know it's true?'

A lot of people take that as offensive or disrespectful. It's not meant that way. If someone tells me that water boils at 100C, I also ask how they know that. As I learn more about it, I insist that the absolute statement be qualified properly, since it only does so at sea level, on this planet, etc. I'm being curious, not antipathetic. Unfortunately, the word 'skeptic' is ambivalent and people can take it either way.

No it doesn't...and that is why I qualified what I said with:

"...(IF)...that GOD wanted to make its presence known to humans...and to make known to humans what "pleases" it and what "offends" it..."

There certainly are lots of people who seem to think that their religious beliefs should be above questioning, and many (it's happened here) attempt to suggest that it's rude to question someone's religious belief. I can go from one year of my life to the next without ever discussing religion in real life, it's almost exclusively online that these things come up.

However, the problem with that attitude is that religious people of the more fanatical stripe won't leave well enough alone. If they don't want to get an abortion, or for their wife or daughter to get an abortion, i'd be fine with that. But they don't want anybody to get an abortion, and having failed to prohibit them, they have gone all extreme and fanatical on us. Abortion becomes "murder," anti-abortion becomes "pro-life." They attempt to put the dialogue in emotive and pejorative terms. They also continue to impose the effects of their religious beliefs on others--they won't have abortion within their community and they attempt to assure that no one else may have abortions whether or not they're members of that community. At its most extreme, it descends into the murder of doctors who perform abortions and the bombing of abortion clinics, with fundamentalists hiding and giving aid to fugitives accused of such crimes.

It is at that point--the point at which the religious start telling others "thou shalt not" because god says so--that others are justified in demanding reliable evidence, in demanding proof for their specific claims (such as exegetical nonsense) and the general, inherent claim of theism. The s0-called golden rule doesn't apply either. The religious fanatic will abide no abortions, to continue that example, within their community and would "do unto others" by prohibiting them from having abortions, too.

The ramifications are far more complex than a simple example such as the abortion issue. When Canada East and Canada West became the single province of Canada, 176 years ago, Canada East (Québec) asked Canada West (Ontario) to support Catholic schools. Canada West was willing to agree so long as Canada East provided secular schools for those who were not Catholic. That agreement is still in effect. It is one of the factors which has lead to heavy Portuguese, Italian and Goan immigration, especially to Toronto. (Goa, a former Portuguese colony on the coast of India south of Mumbai [Bombay] has had a large Catholic population. As members of the Commonwealth, they can easily immigrate into Canada.)

Ontario has two school systems--the District School Boards and the Catholic District School Boards, both of which systems use tax-payer dollars to maintain schools and to build and operate new ones as needed. A few years back, John Tory, the leader of the PC (Progressive Conservatives, meaning the Tories, the conservatives) thought to gain the support of the very large number of Ontarians who resent the dual system, but he went about it in a rather stupid manner. Rather than calling for the abolition of the Catholic District School Boards, which may have alienated some voters while gratifying a great many more, he called for the province to support separate schools for all religions. Well, it was not only a stupid thing to say, it was one of those things he couldn't get away from--the press gave him no peace. So he managed to alienate the Catholics and those who resent the separate Catholic school system. Not only did the PC go down to defeat, Tory lost his own seat in the Provincial House of Commons. He's now a talk radio host.

For people of no particular religious conviction, even if they're not atheists, religion impinges on their lives everywhere. Toronto, the fourth larges city in North America, basically shut down on "good Friday" and Easter. With a large Chinese community of no particular religious affiliations and a large Muslim community, that inconveniences a large segment of the population to cater to the religious sentiments of a bare majority of residents.

One cannot ignore religion if one is not a believer. It affects every aspect of people's daily lives, without regard to their particular confession, or if they are of no religious confession at all.

Interesting read, Set. I didn't know that about Canada. Wish all theists and non-theists could work things out so peacefully.

I don't understand what conclusion you are trying to reach.

it is u that set arguments for conclusions to invest, here i was just provin the contradiction of ur reasonning being much more reliable as a matter of fact

i dont get it, since u know what u want to say why do u have to seek some justifications for it from somewhere else
just say it, u have a free present expression right, u can say whatever u want by urself as long as u justify not meanin wrong, u can always use ur conscious rights to speak up whatever u would enjoy sayin

Good luck, man. You're gonna need it.

An excellent comment, FBM.
Another excellent comment, Setanta.

I think that you are and I hope to see a lot more of your interaction in these types of discussions.

I am not here to put down the beliefs of others but I do like to question them at times.

I may have said something like the following before, but the question is not whether some religions are right and others wrong; it's a matter of whether or not religion in the sense of beliefs about the supernatural can ever be right. My long-standing conclusion is that the idea of the supernatural is wrong not because it is scientifically untestable; it is wrong because it makes no sense. It is absurd.

The entire idea of "existence" seems absurd to me, JL. The more one thinks about it...the more absurd it gets.

The answer to the question: "What in hell is this all about?" is so unfathomable, that trying to make "the scientific approach" seem appreciably superior to any other approach...comes up short.

Mind you, I am like most non-theists in that I see the "superstitious" aspects of the religions currently (during the last 5000 years) working...as particularly absurd. But that does not mean that "science" gives me any relief from the absurdity.

Science is trying hard to get to some answers...and religion rejects (inappropriately, in my opinion) that approach. But science is so far away from answering Ultimate questions that it is not significantly different from the kinds of superstitious guesses being made by superstitious, frightened people wanting answers.

Yeah...this comment is poorly structured...and may seem fractured. But it gives at least a taste of my take on things. We really have no idea of what is going on here...and neither religion nor science is getting close at this time.

Those of us who count on and rely on science ought not to get too sure of ourselves...or too immersed in the superiority of our position.

I agree and is this not the scientific position? If scientists think not then how are they any different than a theist that says they know gods will?

I think it would be wise to do some reading on cosmology and the current state of knowledge of the conditions of the physical universe, especially those which have been discovered and proven in the past one hundred years, before placing Science research on a par with Religious beliefs. If you don't think we are closer to answering "Ultimate Questions" whatever they are, then we were those hundred years ago, then you aren't paying attention or lack understanding. I don't really think you that about you, Frank, I think in an effort to be fair to both sides you have fallen for the 'be suspicious of too much book-learning' school of American culture.

I am content to be 'too sure ' about the ability of Science to describe and explain the 4% percent of the Universe we know to be matter. Meanwhile, just to make things interesting, I am willing to bet Fifty Bucks a Day with any and all persons of Religious Belief that the world won't end tomorrow.

Joe(just my little way of displaying my respect. All bets are payable at midnight)Nation

Maybe I am wrong but I think that this video goes in depth about what many of us have to debate.

to answer the question here, u must face knowin what is wrong

since u dont then it proves that the whole thread is a lie, u made up that sentence as it sound convincing alone

but i can answer, yes any religion so religion concept is wrong always

what is wrong?? what is not right that starts to exist by acting freely in disrespectin objective right

what is objective right?? it is any existing perspective that could represent the quality of else to ownself bein present
that any objective perspective must b respected as it is since it is free somwhere existing truly

u cant mean ur existence if u dont respect at least the concept reality of else existence fact

when religion by definition is a condition to freedom or value, then religion is always opposed to truth rights and existence facts realities

truth rights are what prove values being always present anywhere, whatever value sense could appear convincin to make, it cant b above true value of now

Joe, I doubt our feelings about religion and the answers the various religions offer about existence…differ very much. If you read my comments as me “attempting to put today’s religions ‘on a par’ with today’s science” you just didn’t actually read my comment with much understanding. And my guess is I do as much reading on cosmology and the current state of knowledge (such as it MAY be) as you do.

My point was something more along the lines of: My guess is the “science” of 500 years from now will probably look on the “science” of today with the same mild amusement we use when looking at the “science” of 500 years ago.

We tend to think we have made great, great strides.

Fine…we can think whatever we want.

But my guess is the “science” of 500 years ago considered itself pretty hot stuff also.

And so very much of what today's science thinks about “what actually is” and how it came to be MAY BE almost as far from the truth as the musings of the very earliest “scientists.”



Really?

Well, I am sure many people back not too long ago would have been content to be "too sure" about the ability of their science to explain the nature of the Earth and its position and importance in the universe. They'd have been wrong...but would have defended their too-sureness to the nth degree.

In the grand scheme of things, Joe...we may be naive and primitive beyond the dreams of science fiction right now.

Imagine that you were asking how can we be sure that all politics are wrong, because you are you see...thematic hardly have anything to offer per se to be said right or wrong...its not about the "story" but rather about the common good...

I don't think I mis-understood this:


If "not significantly different ... ." isn't putting science on a equal footing with superstition, then please explain the difference.

It's really interesting that you've picked 500 years ago as a marker. 500 years ago Leonardo de Vinci was challenging Church Law regarding what would later become known as geologic evolution. (He spotted seashells in the earth far away from the nearest ocean and surmised that the Earth had undergone several upheavals in past times. That was in opposition to the Church law that creation had been completed by God in a single unerring stroke. De Vinci paid the Church fathers no attention.

Meanwhile, speaking of Religion and Science, 500 years ago was just about the time of Suleiman the Great who, although he promoted the arts, essentially locked Islamic science in place for the next 500 years by putting in place religious objections to any furtherance of science.
(We in the West should thank him, he did that after we in the West had gotten all of the good Islamic mathematics (al-gebra included) and building-engineering techniques translated into Italian, French and German.)

What you are promoting as an idea is that Science and Religion are equals when answering questions of cosmology. That's just not so, but worse, it threatens to do what Suleiman did. It promotes the idea that Religion may object to any scientific result or fact it finds non-scriptural. That is a perfect recipe for ending the advance of modernity. That is still a goal among many Muslims and for the same reason: Religious guesses must be respected as much or more than Scientific inquiry and reporting.

I disagree.

Imagine where we'd be if the great scientists of 1500-1750 Europe, name as many as you like, many or most of them believers, had cast their notes and findings aside when they opposed scripture?

Imagine where you'd be.

Joe(If we had listened to Church Fathers, there'd be no heart surgery.)Nation

~~~