Quote:
Originally Posted by earthfrog
Science is also many times a mixture of assumptions yet to be proven and facts. If I have evidence to believe that there are proofs in what I believe, and yet they are not allowable to even be tested, what good is it that I share them?
|
When dealing with science as to "mixture of assumptions", those "assumptions" to be accepted have to be the best fit for the current data (a classic example is the geocentric vesus the heliocentric universe models based on the available data) and the results for it have to be reproducable. Under the geocentric model for example the sun always rose in the east and always set in the west. It never rose in the west or set in the east so the data was reproducable. Then with telescopes we could observe that the earth was actually orbiting the sun and again, the earth never changed direction in the orbit... The data was reproducable.
When dealing with a religious experience, these on analysis are not reproducable and do not fit the best available data as alternative possibilities cannot be objectively ruled out. Those are hard to scale benchmarks when dealing with a personal belief structure as the results cannot be replicated, they may not fit the best results (placebo effects are an example).
There has actually been a logic/philosophical argument about why these claims are typically poorly recieved (and it does build on my comment above) that were originally posited by a 18th century philosopher.. For a modern take on it see
Hume on Miracles: Interpretation and Criticism - Taylor - 2007 - Philosophy Compass - Wiley Online Library
Ed
