Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Religion or Science - How do they compare?
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 164 of 882 (832865)
05-13-2018 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-18-2018 8:21 AM

RAZD writes:
All your questions answered ...
... trust us ...
All your answers questioned ...
... trust nothing ...
Religion is about authority and depends on people (preachers etc), while science is about process independent of people, and you don’t need to be an accredited scientist to do science.
I would say how you have FRAMED the question counts as rhetorical persuasion, though I like your smart little play on words. I don't say you're totally wrong on this.
If you see the two as mutually exclusive things for example, that seems loaded. Or are you just saying, "these are the differences."
The problem is with, "religion", the units of, "religion" would say, "trust us" about different things. For example one unit might ask me to trust that if there is thunder and lightning that the cause is Thor. It's misleading to present me because I am a Christian, as being on the side of that belief because such a belief is, "religious" when in actual fact I would accept the scientific explanation. I hope you can see my point.
The problem with, "religion" is that as a term it is something which is VASTLY MORE BROAD than the term, "science". If you are religious you can be an atheist pantheist that believes crystals can heal. Arguably you can believe in jedis and the force and be regarded as religious.
RAZD writes:
Religion is about authority and depends on people (preachers etc), while science is about process independent of people,
This is the problem, because it's a generalisation you use here. For example my faith in Christ doesn't depend on, "people", I don't know any religious people or preachers, nor depend on them. It's important to avoid a sweeping generalisation by saying the general rule will apply to the specific example.
That's what non-religious people tend to want to do, to give the common and broad and shared elements but dismiss any individual elements. Kind of like saying, "atheists are smarter than theists on average, therefore mike, this will mean your IQ is low".
For example, if there are 500 sweets all with similar sweet wrappers and you see many are opened and appear to be chocolate, it can be easy to jump to the conclusion there is chocolate in all of them. But if even one contains gold and the only way to know it is to personally unwrap it then the generalisation won't pertain to that individual example. Sure, they all have similarities, they seem to be the same shape, they seem to have the same decorations.
Yes, religion generally speaking consists of similar things, but they wildly differ, individually and on that level I don't believe you are making an evaluation, you are just lumping it as, "all the same" because of what they share. But what about what they don't share? For example, logically speaking if one is true and all the others are not, this gives one a much greater value than comparing it to the false ones and after all it is logically possible to answer all questions and the answers to turn out as true. If you were arrested for murder and were innocent, I am sure you wouldn't want me to say this if you could answer all of my interrogative questions; "that's what every guilty person here says, send him to prison."
RAZD writes:
All your answers questioned
I would say it's the same problem again - to generalise. I don't think this is the case for some theories I think in some ways, certain theories which science's survival now DEPENDS ON, are treated almost religiously. That is to say, where there is "one shot for science", it makes sense that scientists will hold on to that one possible scientific answer and not let go. That is what evolution-theory is like from my perspective. If evolution is false there is no other scientific answer if some for of evolution is false, so they basically treat evolution as a special case. If some type of evolution is wrong then the whole basis for answering all questions based on a scientific method, will unravel and the public will start to question just what it is science can answer, and will see science for what it should be and what it classically was - a limited tool, not an all-out replacement for meaning of life and faith.
But generally speaking you may be correct. But don't forget, as a Christian creationist, I only believe in 0.00001% of religion whereas for you it is 0%. Can you then see how it is a bit annoying to then be associated with the other 99.99 odd percent? I would also likely accept maybe 97% of what science says where as you would accept 100%. Can you see now if we look at those figures, how we compare as individuals ACTUALLY compares, rather than rhetorical persuasion? (That's if it was your motive to say, "I am scientific you are religious." If it wasn't then it's still important for me to set the record straight so that readers don't fall into the trap of that false dichotomy.)
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2018 8:21 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024