I think there are vast differences between the scientific method as a method for discovery and whatever method is used by religious organisations.
I think for science it is about the data, the evidence and not about the authority of people presenting the hypothesis/claim.
I'm no expert on the method used by religious organisations but I feel it is more about authority than evidence.
Evidence is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
I think the science realm accepts its limitations. They look to prove things about our universe that are observable, measurable and verifiable. Given these constraints they are working out whatever it is that they can work out.
If the spiritual claims could worked out, given these same constraints then science would look into that. But spiritual cannot, hence spiritual needs an alternative method of discovery. Science cannot cater to the spiritual nor should they remove the constraints they have in an attempt to do so.
There is nothing wrong with having a method of discovery for the natural world and a different method of discovery for the supernatural.
philosophy is important, but logic is only a tool, it needs some seed to work on. If you make assumptions and those logically lead to a conclusion then that is one thing, but it doesn't validate the assumptions. Often in the physical world a theoretical scientist makes a claim based on logic and known science but then when it is tested it is found to be false. Without the ability to test theoretical science we would be going off on some almighty tangents.
I think people naturally attempt to see intent and purpose in things, they naturally try to see things from a human focus, it's Anthropomorphism. So without knowledge of why volcanoes erupt it was natural for humans to think it was because they had angered the gods. Just because many cultures thought the same thing, it doesn't mean it is true. We are all human, we have similar traits and misconceptions.
I don't see this as evidence of anything.
Millions of people once thought the world was flat, millions once thought the sun traveled around the earth. Millions once thought life forms were poofed into existence fully formed by gods.
Complex things like living creatures where complex parts come together to form a complex creature would naturally make people conclude that they were designed by some higher intelligence, it took some very careful analysis and exploration to discover and understand the process of evolution.
It's not compelling for me. I wouldn't count it as evidence. Truth isn't determined by popular vote. It is discovered by observation, measurement and verification.
You have produced a lot of comment that will take a small book to answer fully but I will address some of your issues and questions but in two posts so please follow. So first....
You said “
I think there are vast differences between the scientific method as a method for discovery and whatever method is used by religious organisations.”
In spiritual matters it is not so much a matter of “method” as repeated or similar personal experience. For example, in genuine Buddhism, it is said that if one follows the eightfold path (a specific set of protocols) one will achieve a level of contentment and peace within one’s self and with the universe generally unobtainable by natural persons in their struggle for existence.
The fact is that millions of people throughout history (in many cultures and times from both genders all ages with differing levels of intelligence and education from various social strata) have done this and found the approach to not only be sound, but the prediction true. This has nothing to do with “systems” or “method” used by the many religious organizations man has developed around the basic instructions but the reliable confirmation of those who followed he instructions.
People thus do test the premise and observing what has happened previously, find that the same results occur in their experience accepting the premise as truth.
How can you argue against, or be in denial of, what ACTUALLY happened to you, that you actually experienced? After millions of people have derived the same result, this is empirical evidence.
Now it is true that just as with experiments via the “scientific method” occasionally people derive a slightly different result or do not obtain the same result, but again just as with science, the variation is dependent on many factors, but usually boil down to the one engaged in the experiment, Perhaps they did not follow the protocol precisely, or perhaps they see a different interpretation of the same data, or perhaps other unforeseen things slightly tainted or contaminated some aspect of the process.
So...just as in experiments of a scientific nature (
which can only deal with already extant forms, forces, and functions of a material basis), it takes confirmation by others. When a number of others following the protocols come up- with the same results (not “conclusions” because these can be influenced by perspective and world view, hence alleged authorities or consensus opinion) it is usually considered valid.
I think for science it is about the data, the evidence, and not about the authority of people presenting the hypothesis/claim.
This is not true, otherwise no one would believe in speciation as a means of lower order creatures becoming different higher order creatures (like fish becoming reptiles over time or reptiles becoming mammals over millions of years, or non-living matter becoming alive at some one time unconfirmable spontaneous generation event or process, and so on). These things (and others) ARE believed hypothetically but not based on confirmable fact and have never been observed to be true.
I'm no expert on the method used by religious organisations but I feel it is more about authority than evidence.
It is not about method! It is about actual experience which is the most valid type of evidence. Example, my parents actually cared for me...nothing you can say or do will change the truth of that experience. It happened, it was reality, and is not confirmable by the scientific method. Observation is mine personally, verification is not longer feasible, and measurement in experiential matters is a relative term not a truth revealing process (though it works great forsay determining the atomic mass of Gold).
