What has religion done for humanity?

[Kilobugya]

virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science.

The paranormal is outside the purview of science just because it's not part of reality, and science is about studying reality. If "paranormal" did exist, science would study it. It doesn't exist, so science doesn't study it, apart from studying how human brains generate belief in the paranormal (which is part of reality).

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Yes, a commander we take as an example. but I wonder how religious radicals dared to take the name Fatih Sultan Mehmet into their mouths. Radical believers should take people like Vahdettin as an example, because he is a person who suits radical religious people very well. Radically religious people think only of themselves. The sovereignty of Muslims and those who want to live their other beliefs freely is under the guarantee of secularism.

(Image)

What did the dividing up of Anatolia have to do with “Islamic” extremism?

Those who sold Anatolia to the Imperialists were radical religious. Those who want to see what religion has done to the world can look at the countries ruled by religion.

[Aguaria Major]

If I may field that answer: because there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence which backs up the existence of a supreme being. Of course, the universe is a vast place and I can't say with absolute certainty that one doesn't exist, but here's the thing: science is not a mere body of knowledge. The knowledge it generates is a mere product of the process of science itself.

That process, to avoid jumping to false conclusions, always requires that its community of practitioners be skeptical of new claims made about the nature of the universe until one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt using the logical conclusions of the scientific method that their claim is valid.

And right now, no such evidence to back up the claim of a supreme being exists. So if one is to be truly scientific in their analysis of the question of a supreme being, they must be skeptical based on the current evidence. Anything else would be, by its very nature given that science is based upon logic, illogical.

first of all, he confidently asserted that religion is not true, not just that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true, which are subtly different in tone but EXTREMELY different in meaning. second of all, and probably more importantly, virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science. i'm sorry, but the argument you're making is so transparently wrong in so many ways that it would have you laughed out of a room of any but the most dogmatically atheist scientists (and that's genuine scientists, not the armchair internet logicians that this forum so attracts).

1) While you're right that they're very different in meaning (because unlike him, I actually give you credence in saying that you might eventually be proven right),

In terms of practical application in dealing with religious people and thus their execution in a conversation on the subject, the difference between asserting with certainty that religion is falsely predicated and asserting that that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true, is negligible;

Both frames of mind will lead to their practitioners rejecting the idea of a supreme being within the moment based on lack of evidence.

2) No scientist worth their degree will endorse the supposed factuality of the paranormal. The principle behind science is that everything in the universe can eventually be explained through logical observation. But endorsing even the paranormal is antithetical to that principle because in doing so, one is admitting that logical observation can't explain everything, and that some things are beyond explanation.

That is among the most fallacial and objectively false claims I have ever heard.

[Insaanistan]

What did the dividing up of Anatolia have to do with “Islamic” extremism?

Those who sold Anatolia to the Imperialists were radical religious. Those who want to see what religion has done to the world can look at the countries ruled by religion.

I’m guessing you’re referring to the Arab Revolts, which while having religious implications were largely motivated by nationalism.

[Aguaria Major]

You are both right, actually.

But there are other ways to understand people from other cultures. Why do you require belief in a supreme being to be able to understand another being which shares 99.9% of your DNA and operates based on the same pyschological principles? You don't really need to talk that long with someone from a distant land to realize that regardless of where you come from, you find joy and annoyance in similar things;

I am an atheist, yet one of my best friends is a Jain from Bangalore (we met in college thanks to India's reciprocity with my university), and religion hardly ever comes up between us. It certainly didn't the first day I met him. We bonded over our mutual love of billiards and the fact there was a pool table in the basement of our building. I didn't even know what religion he was until 2 years after I met him.

of course religion is not the sole avenue towards cultural unity between differing peoples, but it certainly is an important one.

That in itself negates its necessity for good according to your own assertions; if even you as a religious person admit to the fact that religion is not essential to something you laud as a fundamental argument for its supposed good, and thus a justification for its continued existence in spite of the reality of the divisions it sows among people, then what is the point of keeping religion around based on that metric? It is evidently not the only avenue towards cultural understanding, yet is one of the only ones in existence that is simultaneously responsible for shocking numbers of deaths around the world to this day.

[Salus Maior]

Look at the Christchurch mosque attacks and jihadist organizations in other Islamic countries. religion is bad and kills

The Christchurch shooter was agnostic/atheist. The motivation there was white nationalism, not religion.

It says as much in his manifesto.

[Cekovia]

first of all, he confidently asserted that religion is not true, not just that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true, which are subtly different in tone but EXTREMELY different in meaning. second of all, and probably more importantly, virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science. i'm sorry, but the argument you're making is so transparently wrong in so many ways that it would have you laughed out of a room of any but the most dogmatically atheist scientists (and that's genuine scientists, not the armchair internet logicians that this forum so attracts).

To provide some data (admittedly it's pretty old):

We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

...Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality.

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

what does this have to do with anything. none of this relates to the specific argument being made here about the applicability of the scientific method to the paranormal.

virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science.

The paranormal is outside the purview of science just because it's not part of reality, and science is about studying reality. If "paranormal" did exist, science would study it. It doesn't exist, so science doesn't study it, apart from studying how human brains generate belief in the paranormal (which is part of reality).

or because it's inherently unfalsifiable because it can violate the general rules of logic used in the scientific method, but okay.

virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science.

Astrologer: So you agree that some oppositions and trines could materially affect human lives?

Astronomer: No, I'm saying that the gulf between unmeasurable differences in gravity and human psychology is too great to make any scientific assessment of your claims.

Astrologer: Like I said, it's outside the purview of science.

Astronomer: If you insist. It's also a bit Big Data y'know?

cool made up exchange. doesnt mean anything that you can make up a conversation.

first of all, he confidently asserted that religion is not true, not just that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true, which are subtly different in tone but EXTREMELY different in meaning. second of all, and probably more importantly, virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science. i'm sorry, but the argument you're making is so transparently wrong in so many ways that it would have you laughed out of a room of any but the most dogmatically atheist scientists (and that's genuine scientists, not the armchair internet logicians that this forum so attracts).

1) While you're right that they're very different in meaning (becuase unlike him, I actually give you credence in saying that you might eventually be proven right),

In terms of practical application in dealing with religiois people and thus their execution in a conversation on the subject, the difference between asserting with certainty that religion is falsely predicated and asserting that that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true;

Both frames of mind will lead to their practitioners rejecting the idea of a supreme being within the moment based on lack of evidence.

and i'm not disputing that, but i am saying that it's incredibly irresponsible to declare with confidence something which is inherently uncertain.

2) No scientist worth their degree will endorse the supposed factuality of the paranormal.

no scientist worth their degree would endorse the supposed factuality of any hypothesis in those words, so yes.

The principle behind science is that everything in the universe can eventually be explained through logical observation. But endorsing even the paranormal is antithetical to that principle because in doing so, one is admitting that logical observation can't explain everything, and that some things are beyond explanation.

That is among the most fallacial and objectively false claims I have ever heard.

i do not see how that idea would in any way be perceived as "objectively false." i would also note that logic is dependent on the scientific method and vice versa and because the scientific method is broken when dealing with the paranormal, there is only so much logic that can be applied to reasoning out religion (and adjacent beliefs like astrology, the occult, etc.) before it breaks down.

[Salus Maior]

Christchurch attacker didnt identify with any religion. He was rather a supporter of the Great Replacement theory. A movement that ought to kill muslims

Is that why Brenton wrote the names of the crusaders who killed the Turks on the Tarrant weapon ? Radically devout Muslims and Christians are the same.Religious freedoms of religious people are as limited as the scientific laws of seculars.

I imagine it’s because he sees such people as being ‘defenders of western civilization’ rather than believing anything actually religious.

He explicitly said he isn’t religious. Race was his motivation.

[Austreylia]

Overall, it's probably done more harm than good.

But for the average religious person, it probably makes their lives more meaningful and provides them with some kind of unseen moral support.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

The rule of law, strength and courage in adversity and against tyranny, art, literature, architecture, historical records, scientific development, medical development. Purpose.

[Cekovia]

of course religion is not the sole avenue towards cultural unity between differing peoples, but it certainly is an important one.

That in itself negates its necessity for good according to your own assertions; if even you as a religious person admit to the fact that religion is not essential to something you laud as a fundamental argument for its supposed good, and thus a justification for its continued existence in spite of the reality of the divisions it sows among people, then what is the point of keeping religion around based on that metric? It is evidently not the only avenue towards cultural understanding, yet is one of the only ones in existence that is simultaneously responsible for shocking numbers of deaths around the world to this day.

this may shock you to hear, but not everyone is an atheist. im personally religious and i believe that getting closer to understanding the nature of God makes us better people and improves our chances in the afterlife. perhaps i should simply Stop trying to make arguments to appeal to atheists because you will all inevitably wish for the destruction of religion - pointless!

[Salus Maior]

“Look at the atheist who shot up Muslims in Chapel Hill.

Atheism is bad and kills.”

What about Mehmed-i-Feth (May God be pleased with him), HHDI. Was religion bad then?

I would say that religion allows for/pushes extremes. A person who is already geared towards charity work and the like can be pushed to do more of that if they are religious. A person already geared to violence would be pushed more in and harder to the extremes of that.

I don’t think that’s true.

There are plenty of examples of people who were predisposed to violence for one reason or another renouncing violence and becoming pacifist because of religious influence and experience.

Alvin York is one example. Even if the U.S Army decided to force him into violence by interpreting the Bible themselves.

[Old Tyrannia]

There's a pretty good quote from Sir Terry Pratchett's book Hogfather which, I think, is relevant to this question.

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

Now, I don't want to be misleading here. Sir Terry was a self-declared atheist, and a member of the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association. He was often outspoken about his lack of religious belief. However, I don't think he would necessarily object to my using a quotation from him in this context, because he also expressed the belief that religion had played a role in humanity's evolution. So I think he would be in agreement with me when I say that the OP's question is basically an absurd one, because you can't have something like humanity without having something like religion. One might as well ask what having bodies has done for humanity. Religion is simply what happens when people start to think about things; why does the sun rise every morning and set every evening? Perhaps it's a great big dung beetle rolling the sun across the sky like a ball of dung. Why does the world exist? Something must have made it. Why is it wrong for Ug to hit Ug's little brother? Because they're family? Because it hurt Ug's brother? Why, fundamentally, would that matter? Ug's mother's answer: because the one who made us made it so, just as they made everything else.

Now, fast forward 6,000 years or so and we have some convincing empirically demonstrable explanations for why the sun rises and sets- no dung beetles required. What we still don't have is a sound explanation as to why it's wrong for Ug's distant descendant to hit his little brother. And here is where I would likely depart with Sir Terry. Whilst he may have said that humanity has outgrown its need for religion, I would maintain that we have not and never really will. Religion, broadly understood, is more than just a set of rituals and supernatural beliefs. Religion is about believing in things on the basis of faith. As Death says in Hogfather, if you ground the Universe down to the smallest molecules you would not find mercy, justice, good or evil or love. And yet human beings, even the avowedly irreligious, in some cases especially the avowedly religious, behave as if these concepts were universal truths- they accept them on the basis of faith. Religion is fundamentally the application of narrative and meaning to the apparently meaningless patterns of existence; the opposite of being religious isn't being an atheist, it's existential nihilism.

The problem is that you cannot believe in a universal and objective sense of justice whilst also believing in a strictly materialistic universe without your philosophical beliefs being fundamentally incoherent. This does not bother a lot of people, who get by it by simply not thinking about it. But for those who do, the ultimate decision is between accepting a faith-based worldview in which morality, justice and the rest have objective value, or a nihilistic worldview in which nothing has truly objective value. There is the vital philosophical role played by God, the Tao, Dharma or whatever you choose to term your ultimate metaphysical reality; it is the necessary grounding for any objective system of morality and existential meaning. The religious, thus, have their answer to the question, "what has religion done for humanity?" The answer is that it has allowed humanity to be human. Belief is what makes us what we are, without it there is no purpose, no good, no framework to judge whether something is ultimately good or bad. For those who take up the nihilistic position, the question becomes inherently unanswerable because if nothing has any objective meaning, concepts such as "harm" or "good" become meaningless.

To round this off, as a Christian myself I am going to address the OP's question from a specifically Christian perspective. The ultimate purpose or telos of humanity from a Christian perspective is to love and to be loved in turn by God. Religion is fundamentally about bringing us closer to God, and as such is a fundamental part of our telos, that does not need to be justified by its contributions to other more temporal human goals however worthy those may be.

[Aguaria Major]

That in itself negates its necessity for good according to your own assertions; if even you as a religious person admit to the fact that religion is not essential to something you laud as a fundamental argument for its supposed good, and thus a justification for its continued existence in spite of the reality of the divisions it sows among people, then what is the point of keeping religion around based on that metric? It is evidently not the only avenue towards cultural understanding, yet is one of the only ones in existence that is simultaneously responsible for shocking numbers of deaths around the world to this day.

this may shock you to hear, but not everyone is an atheist. im personally religious and i believe that getting closer to understanding the nature of God makes us better people and improves our chances in the afterlife. perhaps i should simply Stop trying to make arguments to appeal to atheists because you will all inevitably wish for the destruction of religion - pointless!

This may shock you to hear:

But some people actually base their conclusions about the world based on logic, and aren't swayed by the logic of religious people which, when one gets right down to it, amounts to little more than, "because that's what I was taught and God said so."

Nothing should be above questioning in the world of logical thinking, and the realities are that:

a) when one examines the utility of religion, there really isn't any argument for keeping it around anymore, and

b) when one examines its fundamental claims about the nature of the universe from a logical perspective, he will always find them to be full of holes.

That being said: if you want to keep practicing it despite the lack of evidence for it being necessay for society and its claims about the universe, by all means, keep doing so. Just don't try to lie to yourself and disguise your conclusion to do so as anything other than blind, illogical tribalism.

Because THAT is what's pointless here.

[Zurkir]

To round this off, as a Christian myself I am going to address the OP's question from a specifically Christian perspective. The ultimate purpose or telos of humanity from a Christian perspective is to love and to be loved in turn by God. Religion is fundamentally about bringing us closer to God, and as such is a fundamental part of our telos, that does not need to be justified by its contributions to other more temporal human goals however worthy those may be.

I am actually religious myself. But I wanted to address this from a position “outside of my own beliefs”. The application of religion in general outside of the faithful as a strictly sociological device and it’s impacts on history and to entertain the classic “what if” scenarios.

[Kilobugya]

The paranormal is outside the purview of science just because it's not part of reality, and science is about studying reality. If "paranormal" did exist, science would study it. It doesn't exist, so science doesn't study it, apart from studying how human brains generate belief in the paranormal (which is part of reality).

or because it's inherently unfalsifiable because it can violate the general rules of logic used in the scientific method, but okay.

That's just belief in belief. If you actually believed in paranormal, you would have specific belief on how it will affect reality, making it falsifiable. Or you don't actually believe paranormal can affect reality, you don't consider paranormal when trying to predict reality, and then you don't really believe in it, but you believe that you believe in it, because that's how you model yourself.

There is a very fine line between the two that religious/mystics play with, but at the end, it's more of constant retreat from science progress - the realm of actual belief into religion/paranormal shrinks as the light of science dispels shadows, to the point that only belief in belief in remains. Or you actually believe into falsifiable claims (such as the position of stars affecting our behavior, or prayer reducing risk of car accidents) and then you move back to the realm of science, and get the risk of being smacked by the hard truth: it does not.

[Kilobugya]

Religion is simply what happens when people start to think about things; why does the sun rise every morning and set every evening?

Some religion, Mayan I think, actually got that one right!

Religion is what happens when people start to think about things they are nowhere near understanding yet. And that would be fine, if the shared narrative progressed by criticism and experiment, instead of being hallowed as the Word of God and sceptics more or less openly punished.

That's the whole point - religion is a perfectly natural answer to a large, complicated, both hostile and marvelous universe we didn't have any understanding of. And we didn't even have methods to investigate that reality.

But sticking to it for centuries or millennia, keeping a blind faith into a book or a word of mouth that is not backed by evidence, when we actually understand most of how the universe works and have a strong methodology to gradually improve our understanding ? That's where the problem is, IMHO.

[Cekovia]

this may shock you to hear, but not everyone is an atheist. im personally religious and i believe that getting closer to understanding the nature of God makes us better people and improves our chances in the afterlife. perhaps i should simply Stop trying to make arguments to appeal to atheists because you will all inevitably wish for the destruction of religion - pointless!

This may shock you to hear:

But some people actually base their conclusions about the world based on logic, and aren't swayed by the logic of religious people which, when one gets right down to it, amounts to little more than, "because that's what I was taught and God said so."

i genuinely do not understand why you would try to make the large-scale complexities of a beautiful and mysterious universe try to conform to a rigid set of rules, unless you are severely autistic, when you can simply Not. i'd also add that i was not raised a christian and i converted of my own accord because i saw god's truth, not because anyone indoctrinated me.

Nothing should be above questioning in the world of logical thinking, and the realities are that:

a) when one examines the utility of religion, there really isn't any argument for keeping it around anymore, and

b) when one examines its fundamental claims about the nature of the universe from a logical perspective, he will always find them to be full of holes.

That being said: if you want to keep practicing it despite the lack of evidence for it being necessay for society and its claims about the universe, by all means, keep doing so. Just don't try to lie to yourself and disguise your conclusion to do so as anything other than blind, illogical tribalism.

Because THAT is what's pointless here.

is your commitment to what you see as logic anything but itself a rigid undying tribalism, a unity to what you yourself have been taught to be the rules of how things operate, a faith in a system which demands you not have faith? is that not itself fundamentally illogical based on your own rules?

[Arident]

for the average religious person, it probably makes their lives more meaningful and provides them with some kind of unseen moral support.

It's a really reassuring idea that there's always a God (or several) looking out for you, and that "earthly" life is only preparation for the afterlife. These ideas are probably why religion gained such traction in the first place. Another more historical reason would be providing explanations of things we humans didn't yet understand, like the sun and moon for example.

[Cekovia]

and i will not yield until we have gotten to this point

[Aguaria Major]

To provide some data (admittedly it's pretty old):

what does this have to do with anything. none of this relates to the specific argument being made here about the applicability of the scientific method to the paranormal.

The paranormal is outside the purview of science just because it's not part of reality, and science is about studying reality. If "paranormal" did exist, science would study it. It doesn't exist, so science doesn't study it, apart from studying how human brains generate belief in the paranormal (which is part of reality).

or because it's inherently unfalsifiable because it can violate the general rules of logic used in the scientific method, but okay.

Astrologer: So you agree that some oppositions and trines could materially affect human lives?

Astronomer: No, I'm saying that the gulf between unmeasurable differences in gravity and human psychology is too great to make any scientific assessment of your claims.

Astrologer: Like I said, it's outside the purview of science.

Astronomer: If you insist. It's also a bit Big Data y'know?

cool made up exchange. doesnt mean anything that you can make up a conversation.

1) While you're right that they're very different in meaning (becuase unlike him, I actually give you credence in saying that you might eventually be proven right),

In terms of practical application in dealing with religiois people and thus their execution in a conversation on the subject, the difference between asserting with certainty that religion is falsely predicated and asserting that that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true;

Both frames of mind will lead to their practitioners rejecting the idea of a supreme being within the moment based on lack of evidence.

and i'm not disputing that, but i am saying that it's incredibly irresponsible to declare with confidence something which is inherently uncertain.

2) No scientist worth their degree will endorse the supposed factuality of the paranormal.

no scientist worth their degree would endorse the supposed factuality of any hypothesis in those words, so yes.

The principle behind science is that everything in the universe can eventually be explained through logical observation. But endorsing even the paranormal is antithetical to that principle because in doing so, one is admitting that logical observation can't explain everything, and that some things are beyond explanation.

That is among the most fallacial and objectively false claims I have ever heard.

i do not see how that idea would in any way be perceived as "objectively false." i would also note that logic is dependent on the scientific method and vice versa and because the scientific method is broken when dealing with the paranormal, there is only so much logic that can be applied to reasoning out religion (and adjacent beliefs like astrology, the occult, etc.) before it breaks down.

1) Not really. Those who make that assertion currently, as you have just admitted, are no different in practice from those who admit that you MIGHT eventually be proven right while asserting the current data doesn't support that.

If he comes to the same conclusion that I do, which IS based in responsibility, in practice, there is no difference between the responsibility of both our claims.

2) You have badly misattributed the reason for the statement you quoted. The scientific community's current rejection of the paranormal is down to centuries of observation suggesting that it either IS explainable in some cases and is therefore, by its very definition, NOT PARANORMAL, or, more commonly, that the given "paranormal occurrence" just didn't happen, full stop. Usually, it's a combination of both, with the first statement being used to validate the second.

3) It is objectively false because you are making up the fact that any scientist somehow believes in the paranormal. Scientists don't endorse the paranormal because, again, the principle behind science is that everything in the universe can eventually be explained through logical observation, but endorsing even the paranormal is antithetical to that principle because in doing so, one is admitting that logical observation can't explain everything, and that some things are beyond explanation.

Logic appears to "break down" in the face of "the paranormal" because the belief in the paranormal is fundamentally illogical given point #2. It's not the other way around.

At this point, you are essentially arguing that "the paranormal is real because I say so."

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Look at the Christchurch mosque attacks and jihadist organizations in other Islamic countries. religion is bad and kills

“Look at the atheist who shot up Muslims in Chapel Hill.

Atheism is bad and kills.”

What about Mehmed-i-Feth (May God be pleased with him), HHDI. Was religion bad then?

Look at the Christchurch mosque attacks and jihadist organizations in other Islamic countries. religion is bad and kills

The Christchurch shooter was agnostic/atheist. The motivation there was white nationalism, not religion.

It says as much in his manifesto.

Once again we have seen that believers are disrespectful to non-believers. Atheist and my agnostic friends, do you see the common point between the two. Radical religiosity is based on slander and lies, just like in mythologies. You think I'll trust the killer like a Christchurch hitman? The Christchurch hitman did this with the way of thinking of the white supremacist crusaders, as evident from the names on his gun. Please do not slander Atheists and Agnostics with the words of the murderers.

[Theijiang]

what.

[Aguaria Major]

To provide some data (admittedly it's pretty old):

what does this have to do with anything. none of this relates to the specific argument being made here about the applicability of the scientific method to the paranormal.

It has to do with the fact that this is evidence to back up the claim that thinking scientifically will inevitably lead one to question religion.

It's also evidence against your claim "most scientists believe in the paranormal." They don't.

You're just being deliberately dense and misattributing his evidence to the wrong argument.

[Cekovia]

what does this have to do with anything. none of this relates to the specific argument being made here about the applicability of the scientific method to the paranormal.

or because it's inherently unfalsifiable because it can violate the general rules of logic used in the scientific method, but okay.

cool made up exchange. doesnt mean anything that you can make up a conversation.

and i'm not disputing that, but i am saying that it's incredibly irresponsible to declare with confidence something which is inherently uncertain.

no scientist worth their degree would endorse the supposed factuality of any hypothesis in those words, so yes.

i do not see how that idea would in any way be perceived as "objectively false." i would also note that logic is dependent on the scientific method and vice versa and because the scientific method is broken when dealing with the paranormal, there is only so much logic that can be applied to reasoning out religion (and adjacent beliefs like astrology, the occult, etc.) before it breaks down.

1) Not really. Those who make that assertion currently, as you have just admitted, are no different in practice from those who admit that you MIGHT eventually be proven right while asserting the current data doesn't support that.

If he comes to the same conclusion that I do, which IS based in responsibility, in practice, there is no difference between the responsibility of both our claims.

ok machiavelli LOL

2) You have badly misattributed the reason for the statement you quoted. The scientific community's current rejection of the paranormal is down to centuries of observation suggesting that it either IS explainable in some cases and is therefore, by its very definition, NOT PARANORMAL, or, more commonly, that the given "paranormal occurrence" just didn't happen, full stop. Usually, it's a combination of both, with the first statement being used to validate the second.

thats true for things like ghosts and ufos, what we classically consider paranormal, but that isn't at all true for things like the existence of god/gods.

3) It is objectively false because you are making up the fact that any scientist somehow believes in the paranormal. Scientists don't endorse the paranormal because, again, the principle behind science is that everything in the universe can eventually be explained through logical observation, but endorsing even the paranormal is antithetical to that principle because in doing so, one is admitting that logical observation can't explain everything, and that some things are beyond explanation.

science is not inherently universal

Logic appears to "break down" in the face of "the paranormal" because the belief in the paranormal is fundamentally illogical given point #2. It's not the other way around.

it's sort of a circular dependency situation - logic isn't equipped to work on the supernatural/paranormal because it is fundamentally illogical because logic isn't equipped to work on it, etc. doesn't matter which one comes first. the point is that not everything has to conform to the rules of what we understand to be logic.

At this point, you are essentially arguing that "the paranormal is real because I say so."

you're arguing the same for logic's universal application! we all fundamentally have faith in different things that we cannot "prove" to be true. it's just that some of us choose to acknowledge and accept that, and others prefer to cling to the delusion that they are more intelligent, more logical, more objective.