Tell me, what makes this wrong.

[Fake Messiah]

Religious epistemology has been shown to be incorrect by science, specifically by psychologists.

There is a religion called "Buddhism." 

There are roughly 500 million Buddhists. 

Buddhist epistemology has not been shown to be incorrect by science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_l...istemology

There is such a thing as the unfalsifiability fallacy in religion, which means that religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong through evidence or observation. Religious often use this to shield religious claims from rational scrutiny, as any attempt to disprove them can be countered by asserting that the evidence is insufficient, or that the belief exists outside the realm of empirical verification.

Here's explanation from Logically Fallacious:

Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Logical Form:

X is true (when X is cannot possibly be demonstrated to be false)

Example #1:

I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus. Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment.

Explanation: While it may actually be a fact that tiny, invisible, mythological creatures are occupying this person’s opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal, it is a theory that is constructed so it cannot be falsified in any way; therefore, should not be seriously considered without significant evidence.

Example #2:

Priests can literally turn wine into the blood of Jesus.

Explanation: Surely, we can examine the liquid and see if it at least changes chemically, can we not? No. Because transubstantiation is not about a physical or chemical change, but a change in “substance” -- which, of course, is not a material change and, therefore, impossible to falsify. Furthermore, the claim is not that it “might be” happening, but it certainly is happening, adding to the fallaciousness of the claim. The only evidence for this is some ambiguous verses in the Bible -- so ambiguous that over a billion Christians don’t subscribe to the belief that transubstantiation occurs. So we have unfalsifiability, belief of certainty, and very weak evidence.

Exception: All unfalsifiable claims are not fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable. As long as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, it could be a legitimate form of reasoning.

Tip: Never assume you must be right simply because you can’t be proven wrong.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logi...ifiability

[Alan V]

Religious epistemology has been shown to be incorrect by science, specifically by psychologists.

There is a religion called "Buddhism." 

There are roughly 500 million Buddhists. 

Buddhist epistemology has not been shown to be incorrect by science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_l...istemology

Thanks for the information.

[Nanny]

This thread is like watching a tennis match.

No one should have a worldview forced upon them. Believe what you want, do no harm, have a laugh.

[Rizen]

This thread is like watching a tennis match.

No one should have a worldview forced upon them. Believe what you want, do no harm, have a laugh.

The issue with this is that it treats science like a religion, which it shouldn't. Science should absolutely be taught in schools because it's a form of education and learning. Christianity should absolutely not be taught in schools because there's supposed to be a separation of church and state. Everyone in the world should have the right and privilege to be educated in a system of schools. As people become more educated they naturally stray away from religion.

[Belacqua]

There is a religion called "Buddhism." 

There are roughly 500 million Buddhists. 

Buddhist epistemology has not been shown to be incorrect by science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_l...istemology

Thanks for the information.

The point here is that the term "religious epistemology" means nothing. 

Different religions have different views of epistemology which vary widely. Within particular religions there may be different epistemological theories. 

Despite the constant claims on this forum that religious people are not allowed to question or challenge their religion's status quo, many Christians have worked to improve their epistemological theories. 

Thomas Aquinas famously said "Nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses." (Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu). From his book De veritate (q. 2 a. 3 arg. 19) He got this from Aristotle. Since at the time most Christians didn't approve of Aristotle, long and elaborate debates were carried out, with strict logical rules. 

Later, Galileo and Isaac Newton's influence on metaphysics required a reworking of epistemology, which was carried out by Kant. All three of these men were Christians. Kantian epistemology, while it still invites debate, is more or less the baseline which people believe today, whether they know it comes from Kant or not. 

So rather than say "religious epistemology," you should probably specify whether you mean that of Kant, or of Aristotle, or of the Buddha, etc. 

You probably didn't read the Wikipedia page about Buddhist epistemology, but you might find it interesting to note that the Buddha himself argued that "a claim to scriptural authority (sadda) was not a source of knowledge." So the constant claims we see on this forum, that religious people must unquestioningly accept their scripture, does not apply in many cases.

[Belacqua]

This thread is like watching a tennis match.

No one should have a worldview forced upon them. Believe what you want, do no harm, have a laugh.

The issue with this is that it treats science like a religion, which it shouldn't. Science should absolutely be taught in schools because it's a form of education and learning. Christianity should absolutely not be taught in schools because there's supposed to be a separation of church and state. Everyone in the world should have the right and privilege to be educated in a system of schools. As people become more educated they naturally stray away from religion.

What has been said on this thread to treat science like religion? They are obviously very different things with different methods and goals. 

The mistake I often see is that people assume religion to be just a failed kind of science. This is far too simple.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So the constant claims we see on this forum, that religious people must unquestioningly accept their scripture, does not apply in many cases.

... which rather neatly explains schisms, which rather undermine truth claims. If believers can't agree amongst themselves, why should anyone else pick a side?

I understand that cherry-picking happens in every religion, and I'm not even averse to it, but I understand that people choose their morals and ethics. As a result they pick this verse or that chapter out. Great. Stick to it.

[Paleophyte]

The mistake I often see is that people assume religion to be just a failed kind of science. This is far too simple.

Of course not. For a start, the carcasses of failed sciences are at least useful. Religion doesn't even have that going for it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The mistake I often see is that people assume religion to be just a failed kind of science. This is far too simple.

Of course not. For a start, the carcasses of failed sciences are at least useful. Religion doesn't even have that going for it.

Agreed. In fact, it can be argued that the whole purpose of science is to get things wrong and eliminate them. The more of the 'wrong' you eliminate, the closer you get to the 'correct'. 

Religion, on the other hand, seems to fiercely stick to the 'wrong' - factually wrong, at least. Spiritual wrongness is a matter of opinion.

Boru

[Nanny]

This thread is like watching a tennis match.

No one should have a worldview forced upon them. Believe what you want, do no harm, have a laugh.

The issue with this is that it treats science like a religion, which it shouldn't. Science should absolutely be taught in schools because it's a form of education and learning. Christianity should absolutely not be taught in schools because there's supposed to be a separation of church and state. Everyone in the world should have the right and privilege to be educated in a system of schools. As people become more educated they naturally stray away from religion.

Who said not to teach science or to teach religion in public schools? I simply don't care that much what other people choose to believe. If not for religious schools millions of children worldwide wouldn't get any education. Kids can't do science if they're illiterate.