Name one question that religion can answer

[Cabra West]

But for inter-human relationships, I think science can answer the question "what is good" to a quite satisfactory level.

What do you mean by 'inter-human relationships'?

Human interaction, human relationships, the basis of human society.
Sorry, I just can't express myself very clearly today.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

"Why does God appear to hate us?".

Religion could answer that. I hear it's because we're all filthy sinners who make Jesus cry.

He's just jealous of our tacos.

I figured it's because it's been two millenia since He got laid.

That would make me a bit crabby too. *nod*

[The Alma Mater]

You can try to convice us that God isn't real, but it won't work. Name one test that has been successful in proving he isn't somewhere in the universe?

What sort of evidence would you accept ?
Even if we could show that every single occurence in the universe did not require god to exist, but could be explained consistently in other ways, we still would not have disproven God.

Of course, one could wonder why one would care if God exists if he doesn't do anything anyway.

[Grays Harbor]

What is the human soul?

A delusion. I think science has proved that one.

Why is it a delusion? Because scientific methods currently in use cannot prove it? Until the invention of the microscope there was no actual proof that micro-organisms existed, but as methodology and technology improved and advanced, it was proven they do. Instead of merely repeating the "science cannot prove it" argument, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that current methods and technology cannot prove it. Nobody has any idea, really. New technology may well be developed that would prove all manner of things previously thought false as instead being true.

[Lizardiar]

You can try to convice us that God isn't real, but it won't work. Name one test that has been successful in proving he isn't somewhere in the universe?

What sort of evidence would you accept ?
Even if we could show that every single occurence in the universe did not require god to exist, but could be explained consistently in other ways, we still would not have disproven God.

Of course, one could wonder why one would care if God exists if he doesn't do anything anyway.

I would accept any answer but I don't think you can give one.

[Khadgar]

What is the human soul?

A delusion. I think science has proved that one.

Why is it a delusion? Because scientific methods currently in use cannot prove it? Until the invention of the microscope there was no actual proof that micro-organisms existed, but as methodology and technology improved and advanced, it was proven they do. Instead of merely repeating the "science cannot prove it" argument, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that current methods and technology cannot prove it. Nobody has any idea, really. New technology may well be developed that would prove all manner of things previously thought false as instead being true.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1494&start=25#p29455

[Dolbri]

For a start, I'd like to stress that I'm not arguing that certain questions can answered more appropriately by religion than by science.

That said, consider your phrase, "[t]he standard yardstick is the scientific method". Now, we can only come to an agreement that the 'standard yardstick' is the scientific method, and not revelation, say, outside of the scientific method itself. In other words, there is nothing within the scientific method which can be used to justify the scientific method; that's a horribly circular argument.

So... do you mean that the scientific method itself cannot be proven to be correct? I think it has shown its usefulness, though. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Cabra West]

What is the human soul?

A delusion. I think science has proved that one.

Why is it a delusion? Because scientific methods currently in use cannot prove it? Until the invention of the microscope there was no actual proof that micro-organisms existed, but as methodology and technology improved and advanced, it was proven they do. Instead of merely repeating the "science cannot prove it" argument, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that current methods and technology cannot prove it. Nobody has any idea, really. New technology may well be developed that would prove all manner of things previously thought false as instead being true.

Put it this way : If - as traditionally assumed - the human soul is what makes a person, i.e. his or her behavioural individualities, personality, memories, character, convictions, etc., that has been found. It's called the brain.
True, nothing immortal about humans has been found yet. They might, one day, but I doubt it'll have anything in common with what religious folks call a soul.

[Lizardiar]

Khadgar

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

Did his soul get destroyed by the rod?

The soul can never be destroyed. It is there whether you believe it is or not.

Your soul, the very essence of who you are is supposedly immortal. If so why did this man's personality get so radically altered?

It can be changed being immortal doesn't mean that it cannot.

Also why do we post these threads when we know we arn't goignto change many peoples minds about the subject.

[Der Teutoniker]

It's not an answer that conforms to the scientific method, sure, but I think you're in danger of begging the question.

If you're going to say (though I realise you're not saying this above) that any question asked/answered outside the boundaries of science is not a legitimate question, then of course religion can't answer any question.

But if you say that a certain question is answered more appropriately by religion, how do you measure this appropriateness? The standard yardstick is the scientific method. Other than that, what can you say? "I like it better"? "It seems to make sense as long as I don't think too hard (kind of like Star Wars)"?

See, your automatically defining the only appropriate answer to any question must be the scientific method. You made the thread with the intent to argue down any possible reasonable answer by comparing it to the scientific method, rather than genuinely seeking knowledge of what kind of questions can be answered by philosophical means.

I utilize my faith daily to find answers. I understand that these answers may well be subjective, and personal, and that is fine, but my religion certainly does answer questions. I don't pray for the knowledge of, say, the measure of the Earth's circumference at the equator, or how to discern different types of rock formations, and the geological processes that created them. Rather I ask questions that tend to relate in a more personal way, how should I interact with certain stimuli, where do I draw personal moral lines based on my personal views. Science can't answer these questions for me (of course the "My religion claims X is the case, so X is the case" argument is totally invalid as an attempt to convert the question into some scientific model), that said, science can answer a lot of question, the circumference of the Earth, for example, or rock formations and all that jazz.

In summation, you shouldn't make a thread in which you totally will denounce every possible reasonable answer merely because you don't believe that there should be a good answer. Religion/philosophy is very personal, if you have none, you should expect to get no answers, which is likely the case. For religious people, answers should be expectable, perhaps you should seek out some form of religious officiant and have a more personal, and professional discussion with them about the answers they find in religion. It will probably broaden your horizons considerably.

[Cabra West]

It can be changed being immortal doesn't mean that it cannot.

Also why do we post these threads when we know we arn't goignto change many peoples minds about the subject.

Because both those assumptions are wrong. If brain damage can change somebody's soul, that's a very clear indicator that the soul isn't immortal and will die with the brain one day.

And people's minds have been changed. I've changed mine after long debattes, and I've seen others do the same.
If you can't change your mind, you haven't got opinions, you've only got prejudices.

[Free Soviets]

We don't commonly accept revelation a good source of information, obviously, but we could construct a system where it was accepted.

definitely. we've had lots of 'em. the problem is that mere public acceptance of a epistemological convention isn't good enough. it still has to actually work. if it doesn't, then the ideas in your head and the way the world is won't match closely. and revelation works so poorly that every society that has attempted to use it as a standard source of knowledge has eventually either collapsed the boundaries of acceptable revelation to cover a very limited class of phenomena and to happen to a very limited class of revealers, or else just collapsed.

---

i've never really understood those who still think religion's methods could answer anything at all. i mean, they can definitely claim to have an answer - they're very good at that. but it always ultimately comes down to being grounded in some methodology that cannot possibly work as a way to determine much of anything.

How about Aquinas' suggestion that we can reason to faith?

it'd be nice if it worked. so far the best we've gotten is plantinga's argument that, sure, we don't have a very good argument for it all, but it isn't crazy to believe in god, and a sort of externalist justification for that belief if it turns out that god really does exist.

and in any case, it seems to me that these sorts of moves really say that the way for religion to defend itself is to give up its own methods to some extent and instead adopt the method(s) of philosophy. which i'd certainly agree to - i just don't think that'll work for them either.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think the title should have read "Name one question that religion can't answer". It would've been easier.

[The Alma Mater]

I would accept any answer but I don't think you can give one.

Only because you refuse to define the question properly It is a tactic often use by religions - and a dirty one at that.

[Lizardiar]

I would accept any answer but I don't think you can give one.

Only because you refuse to define the question properly It is a tactic often use by religions - and a dirty one at that.

Give me any answer that you can think of. Any at all.

[Dolbri]

Also why do we post these threads when we know we arn't goignto change many peoples minds about the subject.

That has been addressed in another thread recently.

I would accept any answer but I don't think you can give one.

Allow me to repeat what has been said already. There are no indications at all that something like a "God" exists. We have observed a great many things, and all those things seem to indicate that God does not exist. Now, this does not prove that indeed he doesn't, but it greatly reduces the probability. We can explain everything without God, and we can't even observe him in any way. Why would you assume that he is there, in spite of what you see?

And if you do, if you assume that God exists, contrary to all observations, then you should accept that ALL gods exist, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russell's teapot (let's call the teapot a god, why not?).

EDIT: to be perfectly clear, Lizardiar, I consider this post to be an answer

[Chumblywumbly]

There's certainly some questions that science cannot answer; 'what is good?', being the obvious example.

Now, I'd contend that religion couldn't answer this either, but some would.

And those some would be silly. Religion can give *a* answer to the question, but if it is the right one can be hotly debated. Religion B can after all disagree with religion A. And all will tend to hinge on the "my God says so, therefor it is good" idea.

And, top play devil's advocate, why is this a bad answer?

---

philosophy is about questions(the answer is not important)

I would highly contend this.

The answer(s) are very much important in philosophy, as much as they are in science.

---

What do you mean by 'inter-human relationships'?

Human interaction, human relationships, the basis of human society.

I wouldn't agree; I don't think we can point to the scientific method for guidance on correct action in human relationships.

(If that's what you're meaning.)

Sorry, I just can't express myself very clearly today.

No probs.

---

So... do you mean that the scientific method itself cannot be proven to be correct? I think it has shown its usefulness, though. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I do think that the scientific method itself cannot be proven to be correct, but that wasn't exactly my point.

Rather, I was trying to say that we cannot point to the scientific method as a reason why we shouldn't use anything other than the scientific method to gather information. I'm not saying we should rely on revelation and the like, but we can't simply gather everything under the mantle of 'science' and hope to understand all of the human experience.

A somewhat obvious point, however.

---

the problem is that mere public acceptance of a epistemological convention isn't good enough. it still has to actually work. if it doesn't, then the ideas in your head and the way the world is won't match closely.

Oh, indeed.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Well the classic is "Why are we here?"

Science has answered that question far more thoroughly, and with far more testable evidence, than every religion in the history of this planet put together.

Let me make certain I understand you, science has thoroughly answered the question of, "why are we here?"
If that's the case, tell us why there was a "big bang".

[Cabra West]

What do you mean by 'inter-human relationships'?

Human interaction, human relationships, the basis of human society.

I wouldn't agree; I don't think we can point to the scientific method for guidance on correct action in human relationships.

(If that's what you're meaning.)

Er, no, not quite.
However, we can use the scientific method to explain what bahaviour is good and what is bad, and why.

[The Alma Mater]

Give me any answer that you can think of. Any at all.

"God does not exist because I like icecream" ?

See - you did not say it had to make sense.

"God does not existin the exact literal way the Bible describes him, because parts of the Bible have been shown to be incorrect when taken literally".

Makes more sense - but only refutes a specific sort of God. Again: as long as you do not define the question properly, we can be at this all day.

[The Alma Mater]

And, top play devil's advocate, why is this a bad answer?

Not bad as such, just not better

[Chumblywumbly]

However, we can use the scientific method to explain what bahaviour is good and what is bad, and why.

Can the scientific method explain whether dumping someone by text is good or bad, and why?

[Cabra West]

However, we can use the scientific method to explain what bahaviour is good and what is bad, and why.

Can the scientific method explain whether dumping someone by text is good or bad, and why?

Anthropologists can.

[Blouman Empire]

Bottle are you trying to prove that science can answer everything?

Of course that would require us to accept a great number of things to be science something which has been debated on NSG a numerous amount of times.

Can science answer if there is an afterlife or not? Can science prove how exactly the universe came to being 100% correct?

Noe religion can't answer these questions wit 100% certainty either however it can present hypothesises and theories as to what it is. It may be right it may be wrong on a large range of issues.

Or is this a thread based on the poor assumption that religion and science cannot mix and if you are religious there is no way you can accept scientific facts and vice versa.

[Allanea]

However, we can use the scientific method to explain what bahaviour is good and what is bad, and why.

Please explain how you plan to do so.