naive Wrote:In terms of evidence of biblical stories, mostly are environmental (floods, etc, all debatable). Many such stories exist in cultures that seem to be otherwise separated and without any forms of communication between them.

Most religious claims are insufficiently evidenced. But it has been argued that some of the similarities in many different religions are simply due to the notion that the human psyche inevitably responds to certain situations by instinctively drawing the same sorts of conclusions. However, a lot of the time there had been communication between the different societies. I think the following video exemplifies the latter explanation: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lLiRr_mT24[/youtube]

naive Wrote:Yes, some things can be disproved but I was referring only to these events that may/may not have happened thousands of years ago. These specific events can not be proven/disproven. It is kind of irrelevent to my overall point though. I'm sober today so let me give this a fresh go.

Yeah, but if there is no evidence in support of those "events" actually happening, there's no valid reason to decide that they are true. It would be nothing more than an arbitrary decision. (Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system).

To reiterate this point again: There is no compelling rational reason for an individual to place their belief in an unevidenced and untestable claim. Moreover, one could simply put forward a similarly unknowable assertion (It could be virtually anything!!! [e.g. Garbage bins can turn invisible and are really zombies imbued with the souls of ancient Japanese samurais, who are actually responsible for the second world war, and who eat whales for breakfast every single day at exactly 8:31am AEST]).

With his "Interpretation of Dreams", The psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud created a theory regarding the purpose for, and meaning of dreams. His theory is classified as pseudo-science and not accepted because it is not testable or verifiable (hence it cannot be adequately evidenced).

naive Wrote:When comparing/contrasting science to religion,  we have to be careful in not comparing it to a specific religion. There are religions that exist that do not depend on historical accuracy to maintain their belief structures. There are religions that exist that have no personification of their higher powers, and religions that are able to adapt their belief structures and change over time. There are even religions based on observable data (example, mayans that the sun will rise everyday, grows plants, therefore it takes care of people). Religions can be invented by anyone, and can have any number of people that believe in them. There are religions that do not believe in higher powers at all, but rather the mystical properties of nature itself.

Some religions may very well be compatible with science, but many are not (e.g. Literalist Christianity). You can't broadly say that religion is compatible with science, it's something you have to be specific about. 

naive Wrote:Religions can be very diverse, and boxing all religion into Christianity like concepts makes this conversation very difficult. To me, if you get a group of people together who all share common beliefs about the 'truth' of the world, this implies a structured system of beliefs. If all that defines a religion is any set of structured beliefs that people share, then how can science not be a religion by definition?

That's obviously not an adequate definition of religion then, because by that definition belief in anything would be religious. For example, a person would be part of a religion if they believed that exposing water to extremely low temperatures would turn it into ice.

Also, I'm not boxing all religions into Christianity. I gave an example of a religion which was not compatible with some scientific theories.

naive Wrote:The belief in logic is a highly structured system, that scientists put their faith in. Sure, it is drastically different from Christianity, but I am not trying to claim that Christianity and science are the same thing, simply that they overlap in the processes that allow for humans to accept any beliefs at all, faith. Without faith, you can have neither science or Christianity.

It does not require the same type of faith to believe in something that is evidenced, as opposed to something that is not. There exists enormously, incredibly, crazily vast stores of evidence that logic works.

naive Wrote:Concepts such as that we won't walk outside and fall up are not instinctually ingrained into us at birth. In small children (sometimes adults even), it's actually quite common to observe them holding onto something when they look into the sky because they have not yet taken such observations (as not falling up) for granted. It is only once they have acquired the suitable experience to stop worrying about such things that such behavior stops. It is only once faith that observable data will remain constant that children stop displaying these sorts of behaviors.

Assuming that's true, I think it is more accurate to say that it is only once they have received enough evidence. It's not pure faith. It's a belief in evidence. That's the difference.

naive Wrote:If you think about science not as truth, but as the pursuit of truth based on faith based reasoning (no matter how rational), then do you not admit that at there very core they are very similar concepts?

There are some elements of faith involved when relying on logic, but it is not faith based reasoning, it is evidence based reasoning. It requires the same type of faith that it does to believe that a solipsistic view is wrong. Solipsism is the belief that experiences of all external things are in actual fact figments of one's own imagination. If you believe that the solipsistic view is right, then there's no point in even talking to people on an internet forum.

naive Wrote:I have some responses to Silly's questions, editing in.

In response to if I think meaningful probabilities can actually be determined about those events, I am not sure that probability has much of a place when thinking about history. It's either 100% probable or 0% probable, I don't feel that adequate data exists to calculate any mathematical probabilities about the events, therefore no I do not believe those specific events can have probabilities associated with them. If you are to consider these events happening in the future to people of today, yes probabilities can be drawn.

I'm asking in relation to the things that a person knows. Yes, objectively something in the past is either 100% or 0% true. But If you were to say something to me, (in which it's truth was doubtful), by using facts which were relevant to your claim (e.g. evidence for and against your claim) it would be possible for me to determine a probability based upon those known facts. Probability does not necessarily have to be in percentages, the probability of a claim can simply be a likelihood of truth relative to other claims. For example: Imagine that a man in the street randomly told me that I would die within 2 hours in the country of Greenland by way of gunfire. From what I already know: I'm in Australia (which is much too far away from Greenland to even travel there by passenger plane in two hours), and I also don't have any mortal enemies, and it's highly unlikely that I will create any within the next two hours. Therefore, the probability that:
1. I will not die in 2 hrs in Greenland via gunfire, is greater than:
2. I will die in 2 hrs in Greenland via gunfire.

naive Wrote:To me I guess it's less of a question of what factors scientific or religious beliefs are founded on, but rather the human and biological factors which allow them both to happen. I suppose I may even have to make a distinction between the scientific process and scientific claims.

I don't really understand what you mean.

naive Wrote:"When someone uses logic, they are putting their faith in logic. Without logic, we would have no way to distinguish between the truth or probability of any claim, as none would be determinable." - Silly

This statement gives credence as to why It's difficult for me to accept that science is not a form of religion. If I were to extrapolate a little bit on this statement would you accept that "without faith, we would have no way to distinguish between the truth or probability of any claim, as none would be determinable." The necessity of faith is a major factor for me in not ruling out that science is a religion.

I've already made a reply which is relevant: "There are some elements of faith involved, but it is not arbitrary faith based reasoning, it is evidence based reasoning. It requires the same type of faith that it does to believe that a solipsistic view is wrong. Solipsism is the belief that experiences of all external things are in actual fact figments of one's own imagination. If you believe that the solipsistic view is right, then there's no point in even talking to people on an internet forum".