The Real Origin of The Scientific Method Is Religious

[Dbaiba]

The Real Origin of The Scientific Method is Religious :

 

Hi there :

 

I am a new member in this great site .

I hope to find some good friends here , some interesting debates , insights ...

I really want to share the extremely interesting following with you , in the hope to trigger some serious debates about it .

I am very interested in your opinions on the matter .

 

<link snipped>

 

Your new pal Dbaiba

[Moontanman]

Well, Dawkins could indeed prove nothing against religion in that book of his ,that's why he just resorted to many judgements of value instead of facts ...a weird behaviour from a scientist .

He's just a pissed off guy not able to deliver what he pretends to do against religion .

 

I think that people should take a look at the following to broaden their horizon on the matter of religion and science :

 

I wish i could send this to Dawkins and co. indeed :

<link snipped>

Thanks

 

 

I read your link and your post, you are missing the point and do not understand what science is, religion is not supportable by empirical evidence, it relies on faith, it is not up to anyone to prove religion is false, it is up to those who assert religion or god is real to provide proof. In lack of positive proof of god or gods the default position is there are no gods, if you can prove other wise i suggest you provide the evidence. Everyone knows that science has deep roots in the middle east, this has nothing to do with the existence of god.

[Dbaiba]

I read your link and your post, you are missing the point and do not understand what science is, religion is not supportable by empirical evidence, it relies on faith, it is not up to anyone to prove religion is false, it is up to those who assert religion or god is real to provide proof. In lack of positive proof of god or gods the default position is there are no gods, if you can prove other wise i suggest you provide the evidence. Everyone knows that science has deep roots in the middle east, this has nothing to do with the existence of god.

Hi there >

Thanks for your reply , appreciate indeed .

You have missed the whole point of my post and link : all i wanted to do is to disprove the following premisse of atheists and other materialists concerning religion : that science and evolution are the major "arguments " against religion. .

My link proves , beyond the shadow of a doubt , that the scientific method had islamic origins, thanks to and not despite of islam .

My link proves also the fact that evolution itself was discovered by muslims ,7 centuries before Darwin was even born and much much more, thanks to the Qur'anic anti-classical evolutionary spirit .

I can provide you with other serious books on the matter you can download for free, to see for yourself.

I 'll leave it at that , for the time being at least .

Take care .

 

Why do you need evidence for absence? Isn't the lack of evidence enough?

The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence

[pwagen]

My link proves , beyond the shadow of a doubt , that the scientific method had islamic origins, thanks to and not despite of islam .

I'd agree with Moontanman in that you don't know what science is. The scientific method isn't about following the person with the best theories, it's about the theories themselves. You claim Islam suggested evolution (I never get to see your link, so only reading what you claim here), but so what? Is everything Islam says infallible because they seems to have gotten one thing right? How about the claim in the Quran that salt water and fresh water doesn't mix? Shall we believe in that on the merit of your evolutionary claim? If not, then why are you mentioning Islam like it's some method of clairvoyance?

 

http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/551812-fresh-water-salt-water-doesn-t-mix-according-to-qur-an-prof-dawkins-in-real-time-with-bill-maher

 

http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4537.0

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/islamsci.html

Edited June 15, 2013 by pwagen

[John Cuthber]

 

The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence

How do you get to sleep at night, knowing that there's a tiger in the room?

I realise that there's no evidence for the existence of the tiger but "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".

Sometimes the lack of evidence for something really is evidence that the thing isn't there.

[Dbaiba]

Hello everyone. I'd like to start off by saying that I'm agnostic. I'm looking for some reason to tip myself on either side of the line- I just need some kind of evidence.

 

I thought reading God Delusion by Richard Dawkins would provide some insight to this, but I ended up not being able to finish it! The entire time he is just smashing religion left and right calling believers stupid. I'm not even religious and I find this offensive.

 

I was hoping the book would say something along the lines of "This religion is false because of this reason.". Instead it was more like "This religion is stupid because anyone that believes this is stupid."

 

What do you guys think?

I think that the easiest way for you to find out about this is to listen carefully to the debates of Dawkins on youtube vs Dr.Dinesh D'Souza and vs Dr . Lennox , called the God debates or The God delusion debates ...

See also the Dr.D'Souza vs Hitchens and the Dr.Lennox vs Hitchens ....God is great or God is not great debates ...

See the debates of D'Souza on the matter : he really does have some strong arguments atheists can only hope or dream to disprove...He really makes Dawkins, Hitchens, Schermer and other atheists look ridiculous and childish sometimes

Very entertaining also ...

 

See also " Has science refuted religion " debate featuring Michael Schermer vs D'Souza and others ...

Plenty of debates like that between atheists and theists on youtube for example

 

Just download them from youtube and listen to them carefully in the comfort of your home ...

I promise they will clarify some issues for you

Take care

 

Hello everyone. I'd like to start off by saying that I'm agnostic. I'm looking for some reason to tip myself on either side of the line- I just need some kind of evidence.

 

I thought reading God Delusion by Richard Dawkins would provide some insight to this, but I ended up not being able to finish it! The entire time he is just smashing religion left and right calling believers stupid. I'm not even religious and I find this offensive.

 

I was hoping the book would say something along the lines of "This religion is false because of this reason.". Instead it was more like "This religion is stupid because anyone that believes this is stupid."

 

What do you guys think?

I think that the easiest way for you to find out about this is to listen carefully to the debates of Dawkins on youtube vs Dr.Dinesh D'Souza and vs Dr . Lennox , called the God debates or The God delusion debates ...

See also the Dr.D'Souza vs Hitchens and the Dr.Lennox vs Hitchens ....God is great or God is not great debates ...

See the debates of D'Souza on the matter : he really does have some strong arguments atheists can only hope or dream to disprove...He really makes Dawkins, Hitchens, Schermer and other atheists look ridiculous and childish sometimes

Very entertaining also ...

 

See also " Has science refuted religion " debate featuring Michael Schermer vs D'Souza and others ...

Plenty of really top top debates like that between atheists and theists on youtube for example

 

Just download them from youtube and listen to them carefully in the comfort of your home ...

I promise they will clarify some issues for you

Take care

 

How do you get to sleep at night, knowing that there's a tiger in the room?

I realise that there's no evidence for the existence of the tiger but "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".

Sometimes the lack of evidence for something really is evidence that the thing isn't there.

You are confusing 2 different things with each other : fairy tales or illusions with a real -"entity" -to-believers-at least : God .

I can understand that you would consider God an illusion or a delusion ,but you cannot prove that as such ,never .

It does not mean that that lack of evidence is the evidence of abscence of God .

You are also confusing knowing with believing : 2 different things .

God is unlike anything or anyone God had ever created or will ever create : meaning that God is beyond reason, let alone empirics.

Not to mention that there are what can be called rational beliefs ,you do not seem to know the existence of ...That does not mean they do not exist as such

Besides :.

Thousands of years of ancient Greek philosophy , scholastics, modern philosophy ....from the ancient Greek philosophers to Descartes, Kant and others through Thomas Aquina have at least proved that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God rationally , let alone empirically .

That does not mean that God does not exist ,simply because we cannot prove His existence rationally , let alone empirically.

All it means is that there is a chance that God exists and there is a chance that God does not exist .

The former is supported by the historical evidence of the existence of some prophets at least ...

Worse : those thousands of years of philosophy ... have proved that attempting to either prove or disprove the existence of God rationally was a silly stupid habit inherited from the ancient Greeks ,the modern analytical philosophy had abandoned altogether , for obvious reasons .

P.S.: You confuse 2 things with each other : the impossibility to either prove or disprove the existence of some things rationally or empirically like a tea pot behind the sun (Russell's argument ) and the impossibility to either prove or disprove the existence of God rationally , let alone empirically .

Further more , i think that the historic evidence of the existence of some prophets like Jesus , Muhammad at least and their received and transmitted revelations are evidence enough for the existence of God .

Those revelations from God are evidence enough for the fact that man can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God on his/her own ,without help from God in the form of revelations .

I think that you should follow the top debates of Dr.Disnesh D'Souza vs Hitchens ,vs Michael schermer and others on youtube for example ...

 

Dr.D'Souza is really enlightening in that regard .

Edited June 15, 2013 by Dbaiba

[Moontanman]

I've seen them, evidently we didn't see the same versions...

[John Cuthber]

OK, so I started watching one of the debates between Dr.Lennox and Hitchens.

It's here

It starts with Hitchens saying that mankind has been here for roughly 100,000 years and for, let's say, 98000 of those, mankind lived in fear of natural disasters, starvation, and disease.

Then, having watched, for all this time and done nothing about it, God suddenly decides it's time to act.

So he has someone tortured to death in an obscure bit of the Middle East.

 

Dr Lennox replies that he agrees with Hitchens in condemning the evil done in the name of God, but that such evil is done by men- not by God.

 

So, his first act is to simply not address the issue.

He was there in the room, he heard what was said and he then pretended that Hitchens had been talking about the evil done by men.

Well, he scarcely mentioned that. Hitchens had been talking about natural deaths from disease and such.
So, it's clear to me that Lennox couldn't answer the point that Hitchens had raised- so he lied.

He "answered" a point that had not been raised.

It's called a straw man argument.

It's a logical fallacy and so it's poor debating technique, but that's not the real issue.

It's a lie.

If you need to tell lies in order to support your beliefs, it's time to change your beliefs.

 

Obviously, I'm not going to waste my time listening to dishonesty, so I'm afraid I stopped listening very shortly after Lennox started talking.

 

So, Daiba,

Are the other debates you suggested that I watched any better, or are they dishonest too??

[Dbaiba]

I've seen them, evidently we didn't see the same versions...

Well, this proves one thing at least : That atheist Michael Schermer was right on this point at least , as i always expected before starting to read his book ( I have also an audio of the book read by him personally by the way , i listen to sometimes ) . that most of our beliefs are psychologically , culturally ....shaped or determined ,in his " The believing brain...... "

We can listen to the same arguments from both sides , but we mostly "choose" to take the side of our preffered side , we do not listen to the validity or strength of the arguments in question

[Moontanman]

Well, this proves one thing at least : That atheist Michael Schermer was right on this point at least , as i always expected before starting to read his book ( I have also an audio of the book read by him personally by the way , i listen to sometimes ) . that most of our beliefs are psychologically , culturally ....shaped or determined ,in his " The believing brain...... "

We can listen to the same arguments from both sides , but we mostly "choose" to take the side of our preffered side , we do not listen to the validity or strength of the arguments in question

 

 

maybe, then again maybe the version you saw was edited...

Edited June 15, 2013 by Moontanman

[Dbaiba]

OK, so I started watching one of the debates between Dr.Lennox and Hitchens.

It's here

It starts with Hitchens saying that mankind has been here for roughly 100,000 years and for, let's say, 98000 of those, mankind lived in fear of natural disasters, starvation, and disease.

Then, having watched, for all this time and done nothing about it, God suddenly decides it's time to act.

So he has someone tortured to death in an obscure bit of the Middle East.

 

Dr Lennox replies that he agrees with Hitchens in condemning the evil done in the name of God, but that such evil is done by men- not by God.

 

So, his first act is to simply not address the issue.

He was there in the room, he heard what was said and he then pretended that Hitchens had been talking about the evil done by men.

Well, he scarcely mentioned that. Hitchens had been talking about natural deaths from disease and such.

So, it's clear to me that Lennox couldn't answer the point that Hitchens had raised- so he lied.

He "answered" a point that had not been raised.

It's called a straw man argument.

It's a logical fallacy and so it's poor debating technique, but that's not the real issue.

It's a lie.

If you need to tell lies in order to support your beliefs, it's time to change your beliefs.

 

Obviously, I'm not going to waste my time listening to dishonesty, so I'm afraid I stopped listening very shortly after Lennox started talking.

 

So, Daiba,

Are the other debates you suggested that I watched any better, or are they dishonest too??

What do you mean by dishonest ?

I do not think that Lennox was dishonest , that was your own interpretation of his behaviour > that;s not the same

There are many ways to answer a question also , you know .

You gotta try to listen even if you do not like what you hear .

We mostly form our beliefs psychologically , culturally ...so .

We gotta try to rise above that .

watch Dr.D'Souza 's debates then, he is much stronger and bolder in his debates and arguments : very entertaining also .

No one has the final say about these huge metaphysical issues, humanity has been struggling with and still ,during its entire realtively short existence ,in evolutionary terms at least .

So, do not expect to find final answers ,neither in those debates , nor anywhereelse.

Life is an endless dynamic journey experience path we gotta take,so .

Everyone gotta follow his/ her own path .

Good luck to you in that regard .

I am afraid i gotta go .

See ya later

Thanks , appreciate indeed .

Best wishes

 

maybe, then again maybe the version you saw was edited...

Maybe

Thanks

Gotta go

Bye

[Moontanman]

What do you mean by dishonest ?

I do not think that Lennox was dishonest , that was your own interpretation of his behaviour > that;s not the same

There are many ways to answer a question also , you know .

You gotta try to listen even if you do not like what you hear .

We mostly form our beliefs psychologically , culturally ...so .

We gotta try to rise above that .

watch Dr.D'Souza 's debates then, he is much stronger and bolder in his debates and arguments : very entertaining also .

No one has the final say about these huge metaphysical issues, humanity has been struggling with and still ,during its entire realtively short existence ,in evolutionary terms at least .

So, do not expect to find final answers ,neither in those debates , nor anywhereelse.

Life is an endless dynamic journey experience path we gotta take,so .

Everyone gotta follow his/ her own path .

Good luck to you in that regard .

I am afraid i gotta go .

See ya later

Thanks , appreciate indeed .

Best wishes

 

 

It was dishonest because he didn't answer the question, he misdirected the question by answering something else, it's a strawman, it's dishonest and a typical tactic of religious apologetics...

[John Cuthber]

1 What do you mean by dishonest ?

2 I do not think that Lennox was dishonest , that was your own interpretation of his behaviour > that;s not the same

3 There are many ways to answer a question also , you know .

4 You gotta try to listen even if you do not like what you hear .

1 Strictly, he's dishonest or an idiot.

However I don't think he is an idiot so there's only one reason why he didn't actually answer the point raised- but went on about something else instead.

 

2 OK, why do you think that, when Hitchens asked why God had done nothing to help mankind for almost all of human existence (then did something ineffectual), Lennox talked about the harm done by people to people?

Was it because he thought they were the same thing - in which case he's an idiot, or was it because he wanted to distract attention from the point, because he couldn't answer it?

 

3 Yes, there are, but the point is that he chose not to answer the question. Why do you think he chose to do that?

4 I listened and I heard.

I heard Lennox being dishonest so I stopped listening. Not because I didn't like what I heard, but because he was plainly not telling the truth.

What point is there listening to someone who lies?

You certainly can't learn from them, because you can't know if they are telling the truth.

 

If I listen to Dr. D'Souza 's debates and find similar lies will you accept that you are wrong?

Or will you not listen because it's not what you want to hear?

[pwagen]

You are confusing 2 different things with each other : fairy tales or illusions with a real -"entity" -to-believers-at least : God .

Fairy tales can be real to-believers-at least.

I can understand that you would consider God an illusion or a delusion ,but you cannot prove that as such ,never .

You cannot disprove the tiger John Cuthber mentioned, never.

It does not mean that that lack of evidence is the evidence of abscence of God .

It does not mean that that lack of evidence is the evidence of abscence of the tiger.

God is unlike anything or anyone God had ever created or will ever create : meaning that God is beyond reason, let alone empirics.

Special pleading, a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Not to mention that there are what can be called rational beliefs ,you do not seem to know the existence of ...That does not mean they do not exist as such

There are no evidence of a rain god. Since it rains, belief in such an entity would be called a rational belief. Then why don't you believe in such?

All it means is that there is a chance that God exists and there is a chance that God does not exist .

The former is supported by the historical evidence of the existence of some prophets at least ...

Unless you want to also claim that there is evidence of Santa because some kids get presents in the winter, then no.

Worse : those thousands of years of philosophy ... have proved that attempting to either prove or disprove the existence of God rationally was a silly stupid habit inherited from the ancient Greeks ,the modern analytical philosophy had abandoned altogether , for obvious reasons .

Because you can't prove a negative.

P.S.: You confuse 2 things with each other : the impossibility to either prove or disprove the existence of some things rationally or empirically like a tea pot behind the sun (Russell's argument ) and the impossibility to either prove or disprove the existence of God rationally , let alone empirically .

If you're using Russell's argument with the tea pot, why did you arrive at a different conclusion than him? Could it be because you don't understand philosophy?

 

Another user on this forum (krash661) uses the following question a lot, in various forms:

What's the difference between a god that doesn't exist and a god that can't be detected?

If we can't detect your god empirically, then why conclude that it exists?

Further more , i think that the historic evidence of the existence of some prophets like Jesus , Muhammad at least and their received and transmitted revelations are evidence enough for the existence of God .

Can you name any written works naming Jesus that were written during his lifetime?

 

We mostly form our beliefs psychologically , culturally ...so .

So belief is a cultural construct which emerge from our culture, and is not passed to us from some deity?

[MonDie]

The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Even if there is no single observation that can altogether falsify an hypothesis, repeated failures to find evidence do suggest that the hypothesis is false. However, to apply this to God would require a mathematical treatment of the subject, which isn't possible as far as I know. Anyway, I offer you this contrasting statement:

 

In the absense of evidence, the simpler explanation is absense.

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

Rule (7) states: "Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links in posts should be relevant to the discussion. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned."

As such, since this post amounted to "hey, go to this website", the link has been snipped. If you want to discuss whether or not "the real origin of the scientific method is religious", make your case here.

Do not reply to this modnote.

[Dbaiba]

!

Moderator Note

Rule (7) states: "Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links in posts should be relevant to the discussion. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned."

 

As such, since this post amounted to "hey, go to this website", the link has been snipped. If you want to discuss whether or not "the real origin of the scientific method is religious", make your case here.

 

Do not reply to this modnote.

 

But how can there be any discussion of the subject at hand without the evidence in the removed link then ?

You tell me

I can say this and that about the subject ,but without the removed link and without any reference , it would be like thin air, don't you think ?

[krash661]

But how can there be any discussion of the subject at hand without the evidence in the removed link then ?

You tell me

I can say this and that about the subject ,but without the removed link and without any reference , it would be like thin air, don't you think ?

you could always quote parts of it.

[ydoaPs]

you could always quote parts of it.

!

Moderator Note

Keyword: "parts"

[krash661]

!

Moderator Note

Keyword: "parts"

Edited June 15, 2013 by krash661

[ydoaPs]

sounds like there's a catch 22 happening here.

 

which implies it has to do with the tittle,

 

but i'm not sure.

<mod hat>

 

It has to do with the rules. The first post, since it wasn't discussing the contents and was merely directing to an external site, constituted nothing more than an advertisement. Quoting the entire thing is a copyright issue. Both are against the rules.

 

Now, there's nothing at all stopping the OP from summarizing the arguments and giving links supporting the arguments. But "hey guys, go to this website" is completely unacceptable.

 

</mod hat>

[pwagen]

I can say this and that about the subject ,but without the removed link and without any reference , it would be like thin air, don't you think ?

Gut feeling tells me it will be, either way.

 

Disregarding the ancient philosophers, Islam scientists were indeed the first to make use of an experimental scientific method. So one has to wonder why, to reiterate, the Quran states fresh and salt water don't mix. After all, using the scientific method, it takes around at most a minute to disprove. Maybe a few minutes more to see if the two separates.

[EdEarl]

Persians got their start on science from the Greeks, Indians and Chinese. They did make significant contributions.

[Dbaiba]

 

• Mathematically speaking, you're dead wrong. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, it is not definitive proof (in most cases) of absence and the amount of credence it gives to the negation of the claim lacking evidence is dependent upon how much evidence one should expect.

Science cannot prove the existence of human consciousness as such , idem dito for our subjective inner lives , to mention just those .

Does that mean they do not exist as such ?

• Which is quite possible. One 'side' loves to edit the living bujeebus out of things. For example, I've been told that the official version of my Q&A with Craig was mutilated.

It's a matter of interpretation , negligence , misunderstanding or dishonesty indeed

P.S.: How should i quote separate quotes by the way ? haha

 

 

• Which is quite possible. One 'side' loves to edit the living bujeebus out of things. For example, I've been told that the official version of my Q&A with Craig was mutilated.

Idem dito

 

• You're right. Maybe the tiger is invisible. Maybe the tiger is super stealthy so as to be inaudible. Maybe the tiger immaterializes when you walk through it...

Maybe is that tiger a delusion or an illusion haha , or just simply a psychosis , schizophrenia ... : 1 single person seems to be 'aware " of its "existence" , a bit like kids who believe in Saint Claus...

 

• Maybe there wasn't any tiger in the first place.

Let's apply that to God and the outcome would change :

That might be true if most people inhabiting this planet (believers in this case ) are delusional as extremist atheist jesuit Dawkins says in his God delusion .

But then again , say , you go to some remote place and most people there tell you there is a street thug guy terrorizing the inhabitants , the rest of the latters either say they do not know for sure whether that guy exists or not, or just deny his existence , simply because they happened to never have heard of him (a bit odd in this case ) and the others are agnostic about it ...

What can we conclude in this case then, concerning the existence of that street thug guy then ? obvious

 

---

• If God is beyond reason, how can you contemplate what God is? If you can't, how do you set forth criteria that outline what God is? If you can't, what does the word "God" even mean? If the word "God" doesn't mean anything, how can you claim that God exists, created man, wrote the Bible, etc.?

The revelation gives us some hints concerning God;s attributes ....so

The Bible is certainly not God"s word by the way

Just know yourself and you would "know " God as a result

Edited June 15, 2013 by Dbaiba

[pwagen]

Maybe is that tiger a delusion or an illusion haha , or just simply a psychosis , schizophrenia ... : 1 single person seems to be 'aware " of its "existence" , a bit like kids who believe in Saint Claus...

Now apply that same thinking to your own beliefs.