55
votes
How can an uneducated but rational person differentiate between science and religion?
First, I would say that many supporters of science are too proselytizing, too reluctant to admit the ambiguities and necessary limits of science. This merely harms their own case by opening them up ...
- 13.4k
27
votes
Accepted
How can an uneducated but rational person differentiate between science and religion?
Turn the is vs. ought problem on it head. Science, when it is being most scientific, only provides instrumental oughts; religion, when it is being most religious, provides only moral oughts.
Science ...
- 5,256
19
votes
Accepted
What are some arguments against the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment?
Your question is about metaphysical realism and skepticism. There are indeed radical sceptic arguments against realism such as Descartes's demon, brain in a vat or the idea that one is actually ...
- 5,830
19
votes
Accepted
Is there any counterexample given against radical skepticism?
A good question.
Every machine is fallible, including the human brain; this means that when the human brain comes up with any conclusion, there is always the possibility it made an error and came to ...
- 11.1k
18
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
I'd say the burden of proof is on the theist. The theist asserts the existence of some god. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
- 313
18
votes
Accepted
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
I think gnasher729 and NotThatGusy make a great first point - "God" is too fuzzy a concept. Any discussion of God first needs to establish what properties we are assuming God has.
However, ...
- 1,409
18
votes
Is it "unscientific" to be sceptical without offering alternative explanations?
Definitely not. To say that it is unscientific is to fall into what is sometimes called the Sherlock Holmes fallacy. Alice seems to be saying that her explanation must be right because she has ruled ...
- 361
17
votes
Is watching an amputated limb regrow proof of the supernatural?
Logically, if we could prove that God healed amputees then it would as a corollary prove the existence of God. (it is simply the argument that; "if X is specifically observed to do Y, then X must ...
- 2,522
17
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
The answer is not going to be "the theist has the burden of proof" nor "the atheist has the burden of proof".
Before you can answer "Who has the burden of proof?", you ...
- 573
16
votes
Accepted
Is it "unscientific" to be sceptical without offering alternative explanations?
Alice has made some anecdotal observations. Through a process of elimination, she proposes a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, as well as an experiment to validate (or otherwise) her hypothesis.
...
- 1,933
14
votes
Can we doubt all knowledge?
To answer the question in the title:
Yes. That's a key trait of any good scientist.
To answer your last question in the body:
Because we have no better option to depend on or behave according to.
- 275
14
votes
Is skepticism invincible?
You didn't explain why you think skepticism is self-refuting, but I've heard people say this would be because skepticism would demand skepticism of skepticism itself, so I'll address that.
Yes, you ...
- 5,588
12
votes
Can a coincidence be evidence of a god?
Suppose for example that a person is standing on stage and says “God, if you exist, strike me with lightning right now” and a lightning strike occurs that barely misses him, is this evidence of God? ...
- 1,458
12
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
Unless one is a fideist, one is essentially bound to onus probandi. From WP:
[T]he burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who negates... is the obligation on a party in a dispute ...
- 23k
11
votes
How can an uneducated but rational person differentiate between science and religion?
You are right this is difficult, even for an educated person, as science is too vast for a single human being, and experiments may be difficult to replicate. We are told we have experimental proof ...
- 241
11
votes
Is watching an amputated limb regrow proof of the supernatural?
The term 'supernatural' is generally used by modern skeptics in the sense: "That which cannot be explained by natural processes using the natural sciences." However, any event that can be ...
- 18.5k
11
votes
Accepted
Is watching an amputated limb regrow proof of the supernatural?
Short Answer
As an athiest who advocates for philosophy, I would suggest there would be many rational bases for attacking your attribution of the regrowth to the supernatural which by definition ...
- 23k
11
votes
Can we doubt all knowledge?
You can of course do anything you want... But to doubt all knowledge is to indulge in radical skepticism, is it not? If we were all radical skeptics, then we'd be living in a world in which knowledge ...
- 7,770
10
votes
How far can/should one press philosophical doubt?
Descartes was the modern founder of what is called foundationalism about knowledge, the idea that we must find a secure self-evident ground from which all the rest of our knowledge can be justified. ...
- 42.5k
10
votes
How can a non-religious person justify or rationalize hope or optimism in an absurd world?
My first comment provides the starting point for my answer.
This is something that's far easier to discuss in person than it is over the limiting format of Stack Exchange. What gives people hope is ...
- 17.5k
10
votes
How can a non-religious person justify or rationalize hope or optimism in an absurd world?
How can a non-religious person justify or rationalize hope or optimism in an absurd world?
Can you acknowledge the absurd and still be hopeful and optimistic? I feel like you either can acknowledge ...
- 230
10
votes
Is it "unscientific" to be sceptical without offering alternative explanations?
she proposes a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, as well as an experiment to validate (or otherwise) her hypothesis... Bob still believes that it is reasonable be open-minded, even though he ...
- 734
10
votes
Is it "unscientific" to be sceptical without offering alternative explanations?
Let's suppose the answer to your question was yes, it is unscientific to doubt theories without alternative explanations. Bob would have to say 'No need to perform your experiment, Alice; I can't ...
- 13.5k
9
votes
Accepted
Is skepticism invincible?
The history of philosophy has many examples of people who think they have refuted scepticism - Descartes, Berkeley, Locke and Hume not to mention Russell, Ryle and Wittgenstein are all examples. And ...
- 2,485
9
votes
Can a coincidence be evidence of a god?
No it doesn't imply a god exists. Think about it scientifically. How do physicists go about developing hypotheses and testing them? If you wanted to apply scientific reasoning, you would need to ...
- 13.5k
8
votes
Accepted
Was the Brain-in-a-Vat thought experiment explored philosophically before Putnam?
Putnam certainly deserves credit for the colorful realization, but philosophically brain in a vat/isolated brain issues are traced back (including by SEP) to Cartesian evil demon , which predates not ...
- 42.5k
8
votes
Is it possible for the sentence "bachelors are unmarried" to be fallible?
"Bachelors are unmarried" is roughly a definition. Technically "Bachelors are unmarried men" is the definition, and then you'd have a tautology of "Unmarried men are unmarried&...
- 5,588
8
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
Practically in informal circumstances the burden of prove lies with whoever needs to convert the doubter. If you are an atheist trying to persuade a Catholic their belief is misguided, the burden of ...
- 13.5k
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible