Recently I debated Buddhists and Hindus about certain metaphysical beliefs of theirs. I have great respect for both religions and their self-cultivation methods, I just disagree with the supernatural stuff.

Their key argument was that my skepticism is meaningless because science was wrong before and when the germ theory was created, scientists initially rejected it (which is largely true).

How would you guys counter it? Those two discussiosn were the first time I've debated religionists for over a decade.

Edited August 20Aug 20 by Otto Kretschmer

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Recently I debated Buddhists and Hindus about certain metaphysical beliefs of theirs. I have great respect for both religions and their self-cultivation methods, I just disagree with the supernatural stuff.

Their key argument was that my skepticism is meaningless because science was wrong before and when the germ theory was created, scientists initially rejected it (which is largely true).

How would you guys counter it? Those two discussiosn were the first time I've debated religionists for over a decade.

Sounds to me as if they may be falling into what I think of as the "Dawkins Trap" of treating religion and science as alternative accounts of the physical world, whereas their roles in human thought are in my opinion quite different. Science provides an account of the natural, physical world. Religion is not about that but is a guide to help human beings live their lives.

So the undeniable fact that science can and does make errors is beside the point. Of course it does, like any human enterprise. But it isn't trying to guide people as to how to live their lives.

Its methodology depends on scepticism in its older sense (e.g. as in Robert Boyle's "The Sceptical Chymist"), that is, requiring observational confirmation of phenomena to justify hypotheses, before accepting them as explanations. It is undeniable that applying this principle has met with enormous success. Without it, we would not have modern science at all. Moreover this reliance on confirmed observation is the mechanism by which the inevitable errors and false leads are corrected, over time.

Conversely, if and when religion strays from its purpose and purports to explain the physical world, it is often shown by observation either to be wrong or else to be proposing ideas that can't be tested by observation. In the latter case such ideas are ipso facto not scientific, so science has nothing to say about them one way or the other.

You, by the sound of it may be a physicalist, that is, one whose worldview is that the physical world as portrayed and investigated by science is all there is. That's a point of view, but it is not the only position that followers of science can take. Many scientists are also religious believers. In fact historically this was normal. Quite a number of scientists in the c.19th and c.18th were clergymen.

40 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You, by the sound of it may be a physicalist, that is, one whose worldview is that the physical world as portrayed and investigated by science is all there is. That's a point of view, but it is not the only position that followers of science can take. Many scientists are also religious believers. In fact historically this was normal. Quite a number of scientists in the c.19th and c.18th were

Yes, I am a materialist, although I consider most religious beliefs harmless at least. When it comes to promoting scientific thinking, a certain British gentleman is both much more motivated and much more skilled at this than I am. 😀

Science has been wrong, but it’s corrected by better science — better evidence showing the flaws of the original theory, and a better model arises. Religion and mysticism didn’t step in with the better theory.

As for acceptance, yes. Scientists are human, not robots. We do have personal biases and other weaknesses. New ideas take time to sink in. But even that doesn’t fully address the issue. Scientists are skeptics, and so it’s not just evidence, but the amount of evidence, because statistical flukes happen, and you want to be convinced that it’s not a fluke, or that there’s not some other explanation for the data.

Science is wrong now, but that doesn't mean that your right then...

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Recently I debated Buddhists and Hindus about certain metaphysical beliefs of theirs. I have great respect for both religions and their self-cultivation methods, I just disagree with the supernatural stuff.

Their key argument was that my skepticism is meaningless because science was wrong before and when the germ theory was created, scientists initially rejected it (which is largely true).

How would you guys counter it? Those two discussiosn were the first time I've debated religionists for over a decade.

Well it is very useful to know a little something of the religion concerned.

And as exchemist so eloquently pointed out (+1), debate is not always necessary as opposed to discussion.

For instance materialists don't pray, but whom do non theistic religions pray to, what do they pray for and how do they pray ?

This short statement is interestingly informative and quite in line with @exchemist comments.

https://studybuddhism.com/en/essentials/what-is/what-is-prayer-in-buddhism

Some of human civilization’s oldest surviving literature relates to prayer, from Sumerian temple hymns to ancient Egyptian incantations to the gods. And today, all of the world’s major religions have some element of prayer. Christians, Muslims, and Jews pray to God, while Hindus can choose from a variety of gods toward which to offer their supplications. Externally, Buddhism looks to be no different. Visit a temple or monastery in almost any Buddhist country, and you will find throngs of visitors, palms pressed together, reciting words before statues of the Buddha. And for those familiar with Tibetan Buddhism, we have what are translated into English as prayer beads, prayer wheels, and prayer flags.

The act of prayer has three factors: the person making the prayer, the object prayed to, and the object prayed for. Thus, the question of prayer in Buddhism is rather complicated. After all, in a non-theistic religion with no creator being, who do Buddhists pray to, and what for? If there is nobody to bestow blessings upon us, then what is the point of prayer? For Buddhists, the essential question is, “Is it possible for someone else to eliminate our sufferings and problems?”

That was from article 20 on the website referred, about prayer.

Several of the other articles eg 21 Buddhisim and Darwinism would also lead to an interesting discussion.

Edited August 20Aug 20 by studiot

14 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Their key argument was that my skepticism is meaningless because science was wrong before and when the germ theory was created, scientists initially rejected it (which is largely true).

Then I would say their faith in their respective teachings is meaningless because both Buddhism and Hinduism practice things that are wrong.

How can anyone call the caste system "right"? Coupled with the idea of ahimsa, doing no harm, this system fixes a person's place within Hindu society so they can never prosper past what is expected of them.

The concept of samsara, the birth-death-rebirth cycle, can cause complacency in many people. Accepting your fate means you don't always fight for yourself very well. Add the idea of moksha, where enlightenment can only be found after death, and you have a belief system that's oppressive and stultifying, that lacks hope for THIS life.

At least science can admit and then analyze their mistakes. Are religions ever wrong? Do they ever admit it? The Catholics repealed eating meat on Friday as a venial sin, but as George Carlin pointed out, there are still people in Hell doing time on the meat rap.

I would say: The description of reality changes with each new scientific discovery and science adapts, but a religion's voice stays the same. Science describes how nature behaves and religion describes how to live. Creating what are actually pseudo-arguments between the two is not logically useful and intellectually futile. One approach describing the faults of the other is outside of their respective sphere of interests.

Edited August 21Aug 21 by StringJunky

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The description of reality changes with each new scientific discovery and science adapts, but a religion's voice stays the same.

The Nt kinda proves the OT wrong...

Do you want me to provide the voices?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The Nt kinda proves the OT wrong...

That's not the way Jews and most Christians see it. The older covenants were fulfilled when Christ showed up, so the Christians started a new one based on the old one. The Jews didn't accept Jesus.

Do you know any Christians who think the OT is wrong? I agree with StringJunky, religion doesn't admit mistakes, it's never wrong, and it's voice stays the same. That seems to be what faith is all about.

On 8/21/2025 at 4:09 PM, Phi for All said:

That's not the way Jews and most Christians see it. The older covenants were fulfilled when Christ showed up, so the Christians started a new one based on the old one. The Jews didn't accept Jesus.

Do you know any Christians who think the OT is wrong? I agree with StringJunky, religion doesn't admit mistakes, it's never wrong, and it's voice stays the same. That seems to be what faith is all about.

The OT is not wrong for Christians, analogous to how old versions of the Polish Criminal Code are not wrong but simply no longer in force. The Old Testament was superseded by the New Testament and a lot of OT laws were abolished but for Christians knowledge of the Old Testament is still essential for understanding why Jesus came.

Edited August 24Aug 24 by Otto Kretschmer

On 8/20/2025 at 12:35 PM, exchemist said:

Sounds to me as if they may be falling into what I think of as the "Dawkins Trap" of treating religion and science as alternative accounts of the physical world, whereas their roles in human thought are in my opinion quite different. Science provides an account of the natural, physical world. Religion is not about that but is a guide to help human beings live their lives.

I don't think this is totally fair. Most religions seriously intersect the proper domain of science. For one thing, they tend to start with a cosmogony and anthropogenesis. And for another thing, they appeal to the supernatural only too often.

It's not like they are non-overlapping magisteria, as S. J. Gould would have it. Think about it. In these forums, every day and its eve we have a religious character of some kind or another deeply concerned with what science has to say about evolution, the origin of the universe, or whether the world is a simulation (a modern version of a deity) etc. That happens for a reason.

Buddhism seems different though.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Buddhism seems different though.

I think that's bc it's an attempt to explain the same idea but without a god as the ultimate enforcer, instead the idea of karma is introduced, as a different metaphor.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

don't think this is totally fair. Most religions seriously intersect the proper domain of science. For one thing, they tend to start with a cosmogony and anthropogenesis. And for another thing, they appeal to the supernatural only too often.

It's not like they are non-overlapping magisteria, as S. J. Gould would have it. Think about it. In these forums, every day and its eve we have a religious character of some kind or another deeply concerned with what science has to say about evolution, the origin of the universe, or whether the world is a simulation (a modern version of a deity) etc. That happens for a reason.

Indeed, not everyone is equally capable of understanding the message, but everyone is capable of thinking they're a genius, despite the evidence; is that a uniquely religious quality, in these here part's?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I think that's bc it's an attempt to explain the same idea but without a god as the ultimate enforcer, instead the idea of karma is introduced, as a different metaphor.

I don't think so. Karma for Buddhists (and in Indian tradition in general) is a fancy Sankcrit word for "cause and effect". Not the same. In Abrahamic religions God can break the law of cause and effect (think of the Book of Joshua, and the Sun standing still under God's command).

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, not everyone is equally capable of understanding the message, but everyone is capable of thinking they're a genius, despite the evidence; is that a uniquely religious quality, in these here part's?

Assuming there is a message...

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't think so. Karma for Buddhists (and in Indian tradition in general) is a fancy Sankcrit word for "cause and effect". Not the same. In Abrahamic religions God can break the law of cause and effect (think of the Book of Joshua, and the Sun standing still under God's command).

Assuming there is a message...

Why would you think there isn't?

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why would you think there isn't?

Why would you think there is?

4 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think so. Karma for Buddhists (and in Indian tradition in general) is a fancy Sankcrit word for "cause and effect". Not the same. In Abrahamic religions God can break the law of cause and effect (think of the Book of Joshua, and the Sun standing still under God's command).

Hindus and Buddhists treat Karma and Samsara as if they were facts, like gravity, while in practice the evidence for their existence is... vastly less clear. Causality does feature prominently in physics but it has nothing to do with morality.

Also add that what is considered moral varies quite significantly with place and time. For example, in Ancient Rome, killing a slave for trying to run away would be a perfectly moral thing to do. Subjecting the killer to negative karma would mean punishing them for breaking moral rules they were not even taught to follow - an act far brom being just.

19 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Hindus and Buddhists treat Karma and Samsara as if they were facts, like gravity, while in practice the evidence for their existence is... vastly less clear. Causality does feature prominently in physics but it has nothing to do with morality.

Bolded mine; of course it does, it's practically Newtonian or Socratian if you prefer, any damage you do to other's, you do to yourself.

It's like a god substitute for criminal's on the run; they often welcome capture as an escape from the reality of being paranoid... 😉

23 hours ago, joigus said:

Why would you think there is?

Bc it corallated with my thoughts on the subject.

19 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Causality does feature prominently in physics but it has nothing to do with morality.

Really? So are you arguing for a world in which there are no consequences to your actions?

I don't think that's how the world of human actions operates, and I don't think one can cogently argue for that to be the case.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Bc it corallated with my thoughts on the subject.

But those are just your thoughts on the subject. There is no a priori reason to think there should be any message in the natural laws, or in the vastness of the universe, or in the sunset on the surface of Saturn.

A message is to do with how information is organised in brains. In particular, the sequential nature of language clearly suggests so.

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Really? So are you arguing for a world in which there are no consequences to your actions?

The consequences come from other people, not the laws of physics. If you argue otherwise and got good arguments to support your claims, you are in a position to cause a revolution in science more profound than the ones of Newton and Einstein. 😂

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

But those are just your thoughts on the subject. There is no a priori reason to think there should be any message in the natural laws, or in the vastness of the universe, or in the sunset on the surface of Saturn.

Indeed, but there is evidence to suggest there is one.

Fairness, is a complex issue in our primate brothers attitude to life...

1 minute ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

The consequences come from other people, not the laws of physics.

We're talking cause and effect here, not the laws of physics. Morality is all about cause and effect. You don't need physics to have cause and effect.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but there is evidence to suggest there is one.

Do show me.

Morality itself is an extremely recent invention - humans are the only organisms on Earth capable of it and we've only been around for 300,000 years while life on Earth is 3.4 bln years old at least. How would karma and samsara work for E. coli? Or Vibrio cholerae?

Edited August 25Aug 25 by Otto Kretschmer

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Do show me.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Fairness, is a complex issue in our primate brothers attitude to life...

There are many studies on the subject, do I have too???

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There are many studies on the subject, do I have too???

I think you do.