The Scientific Grading of Religions

[dmacfour]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

LITERARY : means personal view without support of Evidence, Testing and Verification of the facts that could turn out to be False.

SCIENTIFICALLY : means Verified Facts that has been tested and is supported with Evidences. For example 2+2=4 . Scientific facts remain TRUE always THAT NO ONE CAN DIFFER WITH .

It's not enough to test if something is false with evidence, that evidence has to be an observable physical phenomena.

Science is all about systematically reducing uncertainty, but there is almost nothing in science that is considered to be absolute fact. There is always some amount of uncertainty in the conclusions scientists come to. 2+2=4 is a bad example because the entire field of math relies on axioms and logical proofs rather than empirical observation. 2+2=4 is proven to be true in a formal sense because it is consistent with the axioms we built our entire system of math on. We could define systems of math under which 2+2 is not equal to 4, and it would be no less "true". Mathematicians have debated endlessly about if math is science or not because the validity of mathematical proofs does not depend on any kind of observable phenomena.

[OPVerma]

Originally Posted by dmacfour

It's not enough to test if something is false with evidence, that evidence has to be an observable physical phenomena.

Science is all about systematically reducing uncertainty, but there is almost nothing in science that is considered to be absolute fact. There is always some amount of uncertainty in the conclusions scientists come to. 2+2=4 is a bad example because the entire field of math relies on axioms and logical proofs rather than empirical observation. 2+2=4 is proven to be true in a formal sense because it is consistent with the axioms we built our entire system of math on. We could define systems of math under which 2+2 is not equal to 4, and it would be no less "true". Mathematicians have debated endlessly about if math is science or not because the validity of mathematical proofs does not depend on any kind of observable phenomena.

We are not talking about the theoretical math of limit and continuity.

If You borrow 2+2 = 4 million and return 3 million with the idea that the total is not 4 , than you can see what happens. However, in statistics we can pass a medicine even if it is only 95 % workable, and accept a hypothesis on the basis of random sample in quality control of the product. Both are scientifically valid and acceptable world wide.

It is not correct to say that the mathematics does not corroborate with the observable phenomena.

[dmacfour]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

We are not talking about the theoretical math of limit and continuity.

If You borrow 2+2 = 4 million and return 3 million with the idea that the total is not 4 , than you can see what happens. However, in statistics we can pass a medicine even if it is only 95 % workable, and accept a hypothesis on the basis of random sample in quality control of the product. Both are scientifically valid and acceptable world wide.

I have a masters degree in statistics and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "95% workable". What does that even mean? If you're talking about confidence intervals, that's not how confidence intervals are interpreted. In statistics, people generally

It is not correct to say that the mathematics does not corroborate with the observable phenomena.

Can you rephrase this? It doesn't sounds like a response to anything I wrote.

[OPVerma]

Originally Posted by dmacfour

I have a masters degree in statistics and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "95% workable". What does that even mean? If you're talking about confidence intervals, that's not how confidence intervals are interpreted. In statistics, people generally



Can you rephrase this? It doesn't sounds like a response to anything I wrote.

In layman language "95% workable " means 95% successful. A therapy could be considered as successful if it could cure say 95 patients out of hundred. It means the medicine would not be acceptable if more than 5 patients die.

As far as I recall in statistics, "95% workable "corresponds to the Level of significance that refers to the degree in which we accept or reject a null-hypothesis. 100% accuracy is not possible for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis, so we therefore select a level of significance that is usually 5%.

you have not answered 2+2= ? what if not 4.

[dmacfour]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

In layman language "95% workable " means 95% successful. A therapy could be considered as successful if it could cure say 95 patients out of hundred. It means the medicine would not be acceptable if more than 5 patients die.

As far as I recall in statistics, "95% workable "corresponds to the Level of significance that refers to the degree in which we accept or reject a null-hypothesis. 100% accuracy is not possible for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis, so we therefore select a level of significance that is usually 5%.

you have not answered 2+2= ? what if not 4.

From a statistical point of view, what you just said doesn't make sense. A p-value is the probability of getting a result equal to or more extreme than the one observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. A significance level is a threshold below which you call a p-value "significant". An alpha level of 0.05 means that if you repeat an experiment you'll get a false positive at most 5% of the time, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. A significance level of 0.05 is something you choose before you collect data and is in no way based on the data. 95 successes out of 100 could mean anything in hypothesis testing - you could get literally any p-value between 0 and 1 depending on what your null hypothesis is.

And what do you want to know about 2+2=4? You could created a math system based on any arbitrary set of rules and it would be just as "real" as the math system most commonly used.

[OPVerma]

Originally Posted by dmacfour

From a statistical point of view, what you just said doesn't make sense. A p-value is the probability of getting a result equal to or more extreme than the one observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. A significance level is a threshold below which you call a p-value "significant". An alpha level of 0.05 means that if you repeat an experiment you'll get a false positive at most 5% of the time, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. A significance level of 0.05 is something you choose before you collect data and is in no way based on the data. 95 successes out of 100 could mean anything in hypothesis testing - you could get literally any p-value between 0 and 1 depending on what your null hypothesis is.

And what do you want to know about 2+2=4? You could created a math system based on any arbitrary set of rules and it would be just as "real" as the math system most commonly used.

It is good that you know your subject but this thread is not about discussing statistics. Talk about scientific grading of religions.

I do not know your religion but I am sure you are not a Hindu as you hide your identity under a fake name. Truth fullness is the first among 26 virtues of Hinduism , ( + vast scriptures) that makes it a 100% good religion. With truthfulness, all the virtues follow. That does not mean Christianity ( 75%) is very much less. Love, compassion and charity, the hull marks of Christianity are great virtues that can deliver the goal of human life. However, such virtues are missing from Islam, in comparison.

[dmacfour]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

It is good that you know your subject but this thread is not about discussing statistics. Talk about scientific grading of religions.

I do not know your religion but I am sure you are not a Hindu as you hide your identity under a fake name. Truth fullness is the first among 26 virtues of Hinduism , ( + vast scriptures) that makes it a 100% good religion. With truthfulness, all the virtues follow. That does not mean Christianity ( 75%) is very much less. Love, compassion and charity, the hull marks of Christianity are great virtues that can deliver the goal of human life. However, such virtues are missing from Islam, in comparison.

I'm sorry man, but none of what you're saying enters the realm of science. It's philosophical in a very casual sense.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

We all think that the religion we follow is the best without knowing why and how.

SCIENTIFICALLY , EVERY object from atom to galaxy including humans are controlled by nature's laws. Religions are meant to enforce code and conduct in accordance with the nature's laws, on its followers for living in peace and prosperity leading to immortality. Any religion could be graded on the basis of 26 virtues and 13 malice that it inspires. Now let us analyze.

HINDUISM : Inspires for all 26 virtues, Zero Malice and leads to 4 types of immortality, hence 100% Best Religion.

BUDDHISM : Inspires for basically 8 virtues( Ast Marg ) Zero Malice, and leads to Nirvana immortality hence 90% Good.

CHRISTIANITY : Inspires for 3-10 ( ten Commandments) virtues, Zero Malice, leads to heaven, hence 75% good.

ISLAM : Virtues not counted. Contains the following 3 Malice Leading to destruction and annihilation of its followers. Hence 300% not good. ( Even 1 malice disqualifies any religion for being good. )
1. Violence : Animal sacrifice on ID festival.
2. Hatred : Jihad or genocide
3. Lust : Permitting to keep 4 wives depriving 3 others.

It is not difficult to see that Islam violets Nature's Bio-Laws therefore Nature forces its followers to live in hellish conditions and killing each other. Now since Nature's Bio- Laws are known, Islamic Scholars must bring reform in their religion. (Ref. 21st Century Bhagavad-FGita ISBN 978819095044 : Nature's Bio-Laws of Action ISBN 978819095037 )

These kind of comparison of religions ( which are the soul and skin of their founders ) is not good . It leads to useless conflicts. Even the deity to whom u (even myself) worship (Krishna) would not like this (Ref Chapter 10 Vibhuti Yog ) .

What you claim to be problem with a religion may not really be the problem of religion , but a problem of people leading the religion like Brahmins in last 500 years exploited supposedly lower castes for their selfish goals or Pope indulging in some wrong practices to maintain their hegemony and for their vested interests pre-renaissance europe. This can in no way be linked to religion problem . It is problem of people not knowing their religion.

Yes there can be issues and disputes in all religions. The best way to resolutions is pro-active work enliven the ideals your religions espouse. And let the fight against wrong be multi-pronged (which includes reforms by the same religion people as recommended by you) . But en masse carte blanche generalization/simplification like this may not help.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

These kind of comparison of religions ( which are the soul and skin of their founders ) is not good . It leads to useless conflicts. Even the deity to whom u (even myself) worship (Krishna) would not like this (Ref Chapter 10 Vibhuti Yog ) .

What you claim to be problem with a religion may not really be the problem of religion , but a problem of people leading the religion like Brahmins in last 500 years exploited supposedly lower castes for their selfish goals or Pope indulging in some wrong practices to maintain their hegemony and for their vested interests pre-renaissance europe. This can in no way be linked to religion problem . It is problem of people not knowing their religion.

Yes there can be issues and disputes in all religions. The best way to resolutions is pro-active work enliven the ideals your religions espouse. And let the fight against wrong be multi-pronged (which includes reforms by the same religion people as recommended by you) . But en masse carte blanche generalization/simplification like this may not help.

I don't know.. some religions are more 'complete' than others. Hinduism should be ranked at 1st place IMO because it encompasses different approaches to the nature of God (allows for individuality and good discussions) and many useful practices that other mainstream religions just don't have, or not to that extent. I can find issues with some Hindu paths and concepts but overall I think it deserves 1st place if we are comparing..
OPVerma is not right thinking this is about science, but he makes fair observations..

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Feather

I don't know.. some religions are more 'complete' than others. Hinduism should be ranked at 1st place IMO because it encompasses different approaches to the nature of God (allows for individuality and good discussions) and many useful practices that other mainstream religions just don't have, or not to that extent. I can find issues with some Hindu paths and concepts but overall I think it deserves 1st place if we are comparing..
OPVerma is not right thinking this is about science, but he makes fair observations..

First thanks for appreciating Hinduism and being Hindu I felt very good.

My only concern is that by carte blanche labelling a religion we antagonize their vast majority which are not devious in the way it gets portrayed out . The ingenuity lies in isolating wrong practices of the people in front of their own people . All these is about painstaking job taking along reformist religious scholars of Islam as a structured long lasting solution .

Even Islam also has a complaint against non-islamic people in the sense that non-islamic people are the highest immoral people in the world watching hollywood and bollywood (Mumbai ) movies . I know their contention is wrong.

We need multi-pronged long term policies and there is not short term sure shot remedy .