shawnsegler wrote:I would ask of you who feel religious connection to watch the first episode of this show if you want some sort of understanding of what people who DON'T believe what you believe..."believe" as it were...
Science versus religion is a phony issue
By Kendal Black
All this does not mean that scientists may not criticize religion, only that they are speaking nonsense when they do.
Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong.
Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts.
Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings.
Read more: http://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/201 ... issue.html
Neither science nor religion is a game, but let us think of them as if they were, and speak of them as games with different rulebooks. That will explain my point more easily and clearly than anything else. The rules of the science game say that supernatural causality is not to be considered. Playing by its own rules, then, science cannot critique religion on religion's own terms; it cannot say anything about it good or ill.
Dajenarit wrote:
Lets be real though, The relationship most people want to have with god is as their personal cosmic babysitter,
Steve James wrote:Neither science nor religion is a game, but let us think of them as if they were, and speak of them as games with different rulebooks. That will explain my point more easily and clearly than anything else. The rules of the science game say that supernatural causality is not to be considered. Playing by its own rules, then, science cannot critique religion on religion's own terms; it cannot say anything about it good or ill.
Starts from a false premise: "science" doesn't criticize anything. Scientists may; but some scientists also practice a religion. Also, if the conclusion were valid that "science cannot critique religion on [an unspecified] religion's own terms", the corollary is that "religion cannot critique science" on science's terms. "It cannot say anything about it good or ill."
But, I agree that the science v religion issue is phony, and far too imprecise and unspecific to lend to a logical argument. Not that such arguments ever prove anything.
All this does not mean that scientists may not criticize religion, only that they are speaking nonsense when they do. They have not kept the two rulebooks straight. In exactly the like manner, the religious person who supposes that his Bible tells him that science has it all wrong has broken the rules of the science game. He needs to do the experiments, or dig into the strata, or measure creation's timeline, in ways scientists will acknowledge as complying with their rules. Otherwise they will pay no attention to him, and rightly so.
I've made a bit of an oversimplification here, for the sake of producing a clear explanation. I will correct that now. There are many fine scientists who are also deeply religious. They can be both because they have two rulebooks, both of them useful in understanding the world, but useful in understanding the world in different aspects.
I think that relieves the charge of a false premise.
allen2saint wrote:You think I'm a fundamentalist because I won't take shit from you? That is the epitome of prejudice.
If your grasp of your own position is so fucking shallow and infantile that you need to use tropes like "sky daddy" and pull out some meaningless sentence about suicide bombing then I implore you to find a smarter, more educated atheist to champion your cause, because you aren't up to the job.
Science? Shawn, you may be pleasantly annoyed to consider the relationship of science to religion.
allen2saint wrote:Dajenarit wrote:
Lets be real though, The relationship most people want to have with god is as their personal cosmic babysitter,
How does it feel to have just just exposed your own bias?
Please. Like I said, I hang out with academics of all religions all day long, because my university employs Muslim and Jewish professors as well. They're the most thoughtful peope I know. I did not join this discussion because I take issue with atheists or atheism. I did not join to promote my own religion. What I did do was join the discussion to make it known that people here operate out of bias that they believe is fact and that they do so out of intolerance....which, by coincidence, is exactly what you accuse us of. What Ido I often hear? "Well, religious people are mean to me!" And to treat them the same way is what? A demonstratin of your superior morality or intelligence?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests