Isn't the empirical method the only true way of arriving to the truth?

Question

People keep babbling about the bible, atheism vs christians, etc...
Why can't we realize that there's no harm in having different religions as long as we guide ourselves with the Scientific Method to act in our daily lives?
I cannot understand religious people that choose to ignore real-life facts! Why do you do this? Are you so blinded by your beliefs that you cannot see reality?

I'm a humanist and an agnostic, but the idiocy displayed by most of the so called "christians" on this site (fundamentalists) is increasingly turning me more and more into an atheist....
It's not wrong to have a religion, but it is wrong when that religion begins to cloud your judgement and grip on reality!

If we all used the scientific method in our daily lives, and reached our own conclusions without being brainwashed by the others, this world would be a much better place!

Of course, the scientific method should be used for complex issues only (social beliefs, political actions, projects, etc...), simple issues like jumping out of the path of a moving truck are to be solved by common sense!

Thanks for the answers so far... great thinking!

Answer 1

Not really, complex materialistic issues should use the scientific method. When something can't be solved, people should be humble and accept they don't know instead of making up stories.

Moral and ethical issues should use another approach, a generally accepted approach though, away from dogmas. Saying "because god commands it" ain't much of a strong argument to convince everyone.

Some other things are self-proving (axioms), we don't need to use the scientific method to agree with everyone about their validity. You don't need "faith" in a axiom, unless you are extremely solipsist.

And if a 16-wheeler comes over you, use your instinct, don't leave it to god(s).

Answer 2

You're right that for many things using facts instead of speculation and opinion (and sometimes even common sense) would make a major improvement in the debate on several issues. Imagine politicians, for example, using facts to back up what they throw out at us?!

However, the scientific method has no application to religion. Religion knowledge is not the same as scientific knowledge. Science advances on observable facts. Religion makes no such claim, and to use the standards of science to judge religion is simply missing the point.

Religion is a matter of the heart rather than a matter of the mind.

As for people who use religion to promote things on the fringes, first understand that most religions, rightly or wrongly, ask their supporters to convert others. Personally I think someone was mis-quoted in the Bible or the Koran because this doesn't make much sense to me, but there you go: logic doesn't always enter into it.

Second, there truly are people who pervert their religions for their own purposes. I've said several times in answers to questions that Islamic terrorists do not represent Islam. The same goes for the IRA in Ireland trying to fight under a Catholic banner. Hell, the French tried to kidnap the pope (or start an alternative pope) in the 14th century to support their political aims. None of this SHOULD reflect on the underlying religions; most of it ends up doing so. Unfortunately.

Answer 3

I'm going to copy the same answer I gave for another similar question about naturalism.

You still face the problem of an infinite regress. You are basically asserting that science can explain everything. The problem is all of science is cause and effect. However, can you explain what caused the big bang to happen? If so, can you then explain what caused that? There is an infinite pattern of causality that would imply that there was no begin to time. That is contradictory to the second law of thermodynamics which states that the universe is running out of usable energy. Assuming there is a fixed amount of energy in the universe, if there was no initial state then essentially after a fixed period of time after an infinite time ago the universe will run out of energy, which would have already happened because relative to now that was an infinite amount of time ago (basic math asserts that -infinity + constant is still -infinity). If there were an unlimited amount of energy in the universe, then we would not be running out of it and the law is still not true.

Therefore by asserting science explains everything you have just contradicted a basic law of science. So if you are willing to accept that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, then you need to throw out everything you've learned so far and start over because that is one of the most fundamental laws of the universe, at which point the assertation looks foolish compared to theism to even the most simple-minded person.

And also there is historical evidence for much of what happened in the Bible. There is a wealth of research in this area out there.

Answer 4

I find it interesting that you preach this "why can't we all just get along?" mentality, yet you refer to a belief system that you do not relate to as "idiocy." What is truth at it's core? Can truth not be different for different people? What you have to realize is that your belief in the Scientific Method is still just a belief. There are many scientific theories that are widely accepted by scientists, but are still just theories. There are many different scriptures that are widely accepted by Christians, but are still just scriptures. According to your logic, a Christian could say that you are being brainwashed by Satan, and their argument would hold the same amount of water as yours does. Different strokes for different folks. If you really want humanity to live in harmony, you need to learn to accept that which you may never understand, and allow others the same privilege. I believe we should all embrace a universal AWESOMENESS!

Answer 5

Your question is hard to reply to because the awesome prognosis is that's all a remember of religion. on the different hand religious scholars (Christian and Jewish in certain) and organic scientist have studied the advent as defined contained in the Bible and correlated the "first seven days" to activities on an extremely youthful earth. In different words, altho no longer measured in days (who can say what an afternoon is to God - the day is only a way for guy to carry close a time period) technological know-how can adventure up commonly used activities - consisting of the vast monetary company theory ought to correspond to God arising the heavens and the earth...etc. Many books are available in case you want to look deeper into the problem. As a Catholic Christian,,,faith is standard so no remember what the awesome effect mankind will continually want faith and faith.

Answer 6

It depends on what truth you seek. Not all things lend themselves well to the Scientific Method, which requires:

1) Observation.
2) Inference.
3) Hypothesis formation.
4) Hypothesis testing against a control.
5) Analysis of results and reformulation of hypothesis, if need be.

I agree there are some (and not just Christians) who use fundamentalism to ignore facts or just get into pointless arguments. Fundamentalism as an ideology is not limited to religion, either, as it can refer to political ideals, moralistic tendencies, or even historical interpretation.

Answer 7

i am a christian and try to live in a christian manner and fail regularly. I love science and science is right about everything - almost. but there are something science cannot answer. have you heard of female intuition, a cops instinct, or your own "feeling" that something may go wrong? there is no emperical evidence of this and no scientific lab tests can certify them. yet they exist
finding our own paths is important. brain washers and people who can be brain washed are those with little faith in God or science. sadly the people who display the most idocy and so called christians are the least religious / spiritual and the most hypocratic

Answer 8

It is not a good idea to dabble in hypothesis testing while a 16-wheeler is approaching at high speed.

The scientific method has its place, but more often than not, the "truth", as a matter of convenience, is a mixture of faith with a smatter of wisdom gained from making non-fatal mistakes.

Sounds ironic, I know, but empirical evidence can only hint at the truth unless you have absolute "faith" in the empirical method.

Answer 9

I think it is a bit much to ask people to use empiricism in their daily lives, however, phenomenology on the other hand I do not see as an impossible task. if you were to ask people to live by phenomenology, they could only be able to base their beliefs on experiences. I think that is fair enough as long as there is a shared engorgement that all our experiences are just experiences and not necessarily a Truth based in reality.

This is not to say that there is no truth, but that our experience there of is fundamentally not hat truth.

Answer 10

I totally agree.

I believe that religion is good to have, but its not good when people take it too far. Some very orthodox christians force their views on everyone and do not listen to what anybody else believes. They make outragous claims like "The Beatles are evil" or "The devil created dinosaur fossils" and force views about abortion,marriage,and war on others.

I do believe in god, but I also believe in science.