Designated Religion Argument Thread

Blackthorne:
One, just because you observe something doesn't mean you understand it by any means. Did the Greeks understand lightning? No, all they knew was it was a bright light that came from the clouds and destroyed stuff. That's not what I'd call understanding.
Two, last I checked, the first step in research is to propose a plausible idea, or theory. Then, and only then, can you perform the experiments to gain further observations and test the theory.
Ragusa:
I never said religion and science were actually the same thing, just that they had surface similarities. Also, just because we can't prove or disprove an idea doesn't mean it's wrong or invalid.

 

Absolutely untrue. Many great discoveries have occurred through serendipity. Quite often a result will be unexpected and the research goes in an entire new direction. Many solid theories have been based/validated on the results of seemingly unrelated experimental results -- such as quantum theory.

 

NOG,
religious arguing, which is deductive, and scientific arguing, which is inductive, are inherently incompatible schools of thought.

Science develops theories through inductive logic and then tests theories by generating predictions through deductive logic and verifying empirically those predictions.

The creationists and IDists basically fall back to 'Hmm, must be HIM again, amazing, let's pray some more' when they meet the limits of their understanding, or limits of what they are willing to accept in science, which is a sort of ... unproductive approach to research.

You cannot prove the existence of God, after all belief is about *faith*. But the IDists and creationists try to do that over and over again -- some 800 years after the medieval scholars engaged in the same exercise, with better results. No creationist or IDist ever came close to one Thomas Aquinas.

A faith-based approach doesn't get you anywhere in science, much less in a science class that is supposed to teach people scientific thinking.

 

T2Bruno:
That's really a different issue.
Blackthorne:
Ok, I know your right, again I wasn't very careful about how I said things. My point, though, is that science still relies on creativity. When a scientist comes up with a theory, how often is it the only possible explanation for the observed phenomena? How often is it purely a logical process with no creative ideas at all. If this were true, you would only have to test your assumptions to prove your theory.

 

Hay guys.

I'm a lazy agnostic who's interested in Buddhism, anyone know a book i should check before i decide??

 

Ok, now I see our problem. This wasn't my idea at all. Scientific answers and religious explanations are two completely different things used to answer two completely different questions. Science asks and answers(or tries at least) the question "How?" Religion asks and answers(wrongly or not) "Why?" The connection here was because you, or someone, I think it was you, said that your problem with religion was that they just made stuff up. My point was science does the same thing, but scientists can check their theories and conclusions, theologians can never conclusively prove their evidence. The real problem here is with the aspect of repeatability. In chemistry, one reaction always proceeds the same way, so long as it is the same reaction. In religion, one prayer may never be answered the same way twice. If it was, you wouldn't be dealing with God or gods, but with formulae and equations. This is more like magic, real magic, than mainstream religions, and even that has problems with repeatability.

 

I found this one, its a woman that describes anyone that is non-Christian as an athiest, even people that don't support Bush are athiests!

http://www.haywired.com/goldchrist/about.html

Here is a highlight, especially the last sentence:

 

Cuchulainn, this is one whackjob out of a country of several hundred million people. She has no authority and no credibility - she can't even SPELL, for crying out loud! There's nothing to this woman other than faith and a website. Don't try to extend that into some sort of implication that a significant number of Americans actually think this way.

 

@Cuchy-coo:
Yeah, some people are

@Rallymama:
I don't see where Cuchulainn mentioned America, and I doubt that he was doing more than pointing out this sole woman's ridiculous views in order to prove the rule by noting the exception. Relax.

 

Relax, I did not even say that a small percentage of the country was that way, never mind that website being a representation of Americans!

Why is it that Americans take offense to one of their citizens being criticized?

If you said Rory O'Connell from Sligo was crazy for killing his dog with a frozen turkey, I would not take any offense at all. Every country has their share of crazies, and the worst are ones that use religion to 'back-up' their views.

 

I'm always wary of people whom think of pets as people. That dog is pretty cute though...

 

The woman is definitely crazy - and poorly informed to boot. There is nothing Satanic about Islam, and if she did some research, she would be surprised to find out the Hitler was actually fairly devout. Now I will grant that his actions were not very Christian in nature, but he went to Church almost every Sunday.

 

Church does not equal Christian by any means, except possibly Catholics.
Sorry to all the Catholics out there, but there's a lot of stuff in Catholicism that flattly contradicts the word of God and that really REALLY bugs me. I have no real problem with people having weird beliefs, but don't contradict your own god!