What price religion?
- Thread starter spect8or
- Start date
The heart of it is, in religion beliefs are held on faith; science, by repeatable observations (usually quantitative).
Science is limited because every model or theory must have a starting point taken on faith, or at least a part in the beginning that cannot be tested or explained. In that sense, it is the same as religion.
the belief in science is not based on faith but on evidence. belief in science is not unconditional. scientific theories are always tentative and subject to modification, unlike religious dogmas. science attempts to root out error, not perpetuate it by disallowing challenges to beliefs, as religions do.
:-/
All true except your first point, that science is not based on faith. Every scientific theory has a root that must be taken on faith. Name the theory, i'll tell you what part is currently based on faith.
>Every scientific theory has a root that must be
>taken on faith. Name the theory, i'll tell you
>what part is currently based on faith.
A reasoned individual will easily see the difference in both the execution and result of:
A: faith that a prayer will heal one's sick mother
B: faith that when I set my glass down next to my computer, gravity will keep it there.
Trying to call them both "faith" in the same context is an easy(for some) mistake.
JB
>taken on faith. Name the theory, i'll tell you
>what part is currently based on faith.
A reasoned individual will easily see the difference in both the execution and result of:
A: faith that a prayer will heal one's sick mother
B: faith that when I set my glass down next to my computer, gravity will keep it there.
Trying to call them both "faith" in the same context is an easy(for some) mistake.
JB
you want to approach this rationally? ok, formulate your grand notion of a supernatural creator into an explicit model and then test it. quit beating around the bush.
faith is easy. too easy, and a big cop out for the lazy minded. its too easy to just "believe". thats not the way a supossedly intelligent creature acts.
what are you afraid of? define your supreme being and gather some compelling evidence out there in the real world. for a notion this big there should be SOME evidence out there shouldn't there, if there is any truth to it.
it is so silly to look up in sky shrug your shoulders in confusion and amazement and say, 'oh well golly gee how wonderful and confusing this all is must be work of a giant all-knowing all-powerful being". then walk away satisfied and content. that is so silly and childish that i am ashamed for this race of human beings that has the audacity to call itself "intelligent". if i should ever come face to face with another creature [alien] of true intellect i shall hold my head in shame for this race. :-/
True but setting a glass down next to your computer will not help you decide on theological/philosophical issues. Cosmology, archaeology, etc. are significantly more subjective than Newtonian mechanics and require a certain amount of subjectivity per Peter's comment.
In other words, just because science can explain why a billiard ball rolls across a table does not mean science has that degree of clarity for larger spiritual issues.
>True but setting a glass down next to your
>computer will not help you decide on
>theological/philosophical issues.
I agree. My example was not an attempt the *prove* a point, but rather to *refute* a previous point and should be carried no further.
Comparing the faith required to believe in gravity to the faith required to believe in a supreme being is folly IMO.
JB
>computer will not help you decide on
>theological/philosophical issues.
I agree. My example was not an attempt the *prove* a point, but rather to *refute* a previous point and should be carried no further.
Comparing the faith required to believe in gravity to the faith required to believe in a supreme being is folly IMO.
JB
so what does have the clarity for larger spiritual issues, mere belief? naked belief is so notoriously unreliable, inaccurate, fraught with personal bias it is laughable. HaHa! One look at the sheer staggering number of differing notions of spirituality all based on your grand "belief" or "faith" is all you need to realize how ridiculously poor a tool for discovery naked faith really is Ha!:-/
Supernatural creator: religion; take on faith (or not); not testable.
Oparin's Hypothesis (if I remember my h.s. biology correctly): Life spontaneously emerged from organic chemicals present on the early earth. Must also take on faith, because even though you can test this today, nobody has been able to make life spontaneously emerge from organic chemicals. Viewed in a different light, all tests have failed.
So if you believe in spontaneous creation of life, that's just as much religion as believing in a supernatural creator.