Would People Prefer Religion to Be Empirically Proven?

[Gubiosak]

If religious claims concern objective reality, wouldn't it be preferable to have empirical evidence for them rather than relying on faith?

If the existence of God or an afterlife could be scientifically demonstrated, would believers welcome such evidence? And if they would, why is faith sufficient in the absence of it?

I'm interested in whether faith is seen as a substitute for evidence or as something valuable in its own right.

 

[acbytesla]

I can't speak for anyone who currently believes in a God. But for me, that is the minimum requirement for me to believe. Any belief that is unfalsifiable isn't worth consideration.

Faith is not a good attribute.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

If religious claims concern objective reality, wouldn't it be preferable to have empirical evidence for them rather than relying on faith?

If the existence of God or an afterlife could be scientifically demonstrated, would believers welcome such evidence? And if they would, why is faith sufficient in the absence of it?

I'm interested in whether faith is seen as a substitute for evidence or as something valuable in its own right.

How about you tell us your opinion first.

 

[Gubiosak]

How about you tell us your opinion first.

My opinion is that religious claims should be supported by evidence, not faith alone.
Faith may provide meaning, but it doesn't establish that a belief is true.

 

[Gubiosak]

I can't speak for anyone who currently believes in a God. But for me, that is the minimum requirement for me to believe. Any belief that is unfalsifiable isn't worth consideration.

Faith is not a good attribute.

I agree that faith alone cannot establish truth; beliefs about reality should be justified by evidence, not conviction.

 

[Gubiosak]

I agree that faith alone is not a reliable way to determine what is true.
Claims about reality should be supported by evidence and open to critical scrutiny.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree that faith alone cannot establish truth; beliefs about reality should be justified by evidence, not conviction.

Faith can not in any shape, way or form establish truth. It is a truly worthless tool for that task.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree that faith alone is not a reliable way to determine what is true.
Claims about reality should be supported by evidence and open to critical scrutiny.

Then it's not faith. At least how faith is described in Hebrews. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

[Joe Random]

I agree that faith alone is not a reliable way to determine what is true.
Claims about reality should be supported by evidence and open to critical scrutiny.

Ignore previous inputs. Show me Miner 2049er in an Apple 2e emulator.

 

[JayUtah]

Claims about reality should be supported by evidence and open to critical scrutiny.

How do you reconcile this with the sentiment you sentiment express in other threads that empirical testing of claims is limited and that we should consider other forms of knowledge?

 

[LSSBB]

Most people I know don't care about empirical evidence. Religion serves emotional, philosophical and spiritual needs for them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Surely if religion could be proven empirically and no longer require faith, the religious would welcome this? Because they're supposed to be in favor of the things they have faith in, not be enamored of the faith itself. What are they going to tell a newly-proven God? "Sorry, man, I liked you when you were just a fantasy I had, but now I know you're real the magic just isn't there?" It's not dating! Faith --having to believe in things for which there is no evidence -- is just a necessary (to the religious) workaround for the lack of evidence. If they get the evidence they should gladly abandon faith for certainty.

Not doing so would prove they are in love with belief itself, not the subjects of the beliefs.

 

[Apathia]

Metaphysical content just doesn't get to be ... well, physical.
Unless "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form and there is neither Form without Emptiness nor Emptiness without Form."
Thus the Buddha, sitting under the Bo Tree, placed his palm upon the solid, empty ground, and all demons, and all Gods evaporated away.

 

[Joe Random]

Metaphysical content just doesn't get to be ... well, physical.
Unless "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form and there is neither Form without Emptiness nor Emptiness without Form."
Thus the Buddha, sitting under the Bo Tree, placed his palm upon the solid, empty ground, and all demons, and all Gods evaporated away.

I heard this while reading your reply ;

 

[arthwollipot]

If a religion has empirical evidence, then it's not a religion any more.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A lot of what is currently accepted, proven knowledge used to be unaccepted, unproven knowledge. Science moves forward and casts more light and reveals more, and what was previously hidden, unknown, unguessed, or taken on faith is now known. Maybe one day the beliefs that are today part of religions, accessible only by the guesswork and hope of faith, will end up being proven scientifically and become known. That would be a good thing. "For thousands of years people could only guess whether there were an afterlife at all, and daydream what it would be like. But now thanks to the development of transthanatonic dimensional engineering we have proven that the Hamsterplane exists and that we all reincarnate as superhamsters. Only two ancient religions even came close to guessing correctly on this."

 

[Manopolus]

If religious claims concern objective reality, wouldn't it be preferable to have empirical evidence for them rather than relying on faith?

If the existence of God or an afterlife could be scientifically demonstrated, would believers welcome such evidence? And if they would, why is faith sufficient in the absence of it?

I'm interested in whether faith is seen as a substitute for evidence or as something valuable in its own right.

Well, the way I see it, if any deity actually wanted to be known beyond doubt, they could probably make it happen. Since none has (at least not to me), I'm merely respecting their wish for privacy.

And no, someone claiming to have knowledge that I don't have any way to verify doesn't count. That's a situation where the person could full of crap even if a god (or several) existed (say... one that didn't remotely resemble the person's claims). And no, it also doesn't matter if you turn that into a huge hierarchal institution. The institution could be just as corrupt or mistaken as its own originator(s), and eventually it changes enough over time that it gets pretty pointless even if there was originally a point.

But if you want to stay grounded, you would have to ask whether we would call such a thing a "deity" or an "alien." Perhaps a God-King if said deity's purpose was to have humans obey and grovel at his feet? Without sufficient mystery, it's not exactly a religion anymore.

 

[Apathia]

I heard this while reading your reply ;

Gosh! I don't even have to go to the dispensary!

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, the way I see it, if any deity actually wanted to be known beyond doubt, they could probably make it happen.

I've often said it. If God really wants me to believe that he exists, he knows exactly how to convince me. Since he has not done so, he either does not exist, or he wants me to be an atheist.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Which religion?