![]() |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
I see the faith argument as a weak excuse to escape all criticism and nothing more.
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
You deleted my post, didn't you :( But really, there is no debate to the concept of it. It's simple. You can't debate it because it's beliefs rather than fact. You can't debate with religion on the grounds that it is unprovable by its own nature. Not only that, but due to the nature of serious debate, unfounded beliefs aren't admissible on the grounds that they are not empirical. You could mention beliefs and such, but they cannot be used as support or as a means to denounce the opposition. If I have a belief that the death penalty is wrong, I can't walk into a debate and say "my beliefs say this is wrong" and walk out the winner of the argument. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Afro, the thread is not about whether religion is true or not, but whether religion is scrutinized as much as it should be, and how it should be scrutinized. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that.
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
That's the problem. You can't scientifically test religion, because if you try, your returned result is that it's not scientifically true. But a person's faith can be contrary to empirically proven truth, and as far as this topic is concerned, that's where it lies. Thus, this scrutiny that some would suggest is tandamount to frankly stating "gods don't exist and all religions are wrong and/or lies." I personally am in favor of people taking that stance on the subject, but as far as this forum is concerned, I know it can't work. Too many people have their beliefs and they are at odds with the function of this forum. Thus, the best solution is to simply avoid such discussion, not to put a big sticker on it saying "god isn't real". |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
The idea that religion and science are two non-overlapping realms is not true. Religion makes various claims about the world, as does science. A universe with a god will look very different from a universe without one. Science is concerned with explaining what exists, so the truth claims of religion are directly in conflict with empirical science.
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
what about this? science usually doesn't tell religion to stop doing something because it's wrong. religion has been telling science to shut up for centuries, now they go all out for contraceptives, genetics, and such. latest thing they've done is saying you can't check the genes of your embryons to see if there will be malformations/genetic diseases. THEY WANT BROKEN HUMANS TO BE BORN BECAUSE,THEY SAY, THE DIFFERENT SHOULDNT BE AVOIDED. yet they burned dissentors and "witches" in the past, and even nowadays people are exorcized. people who most likely need a psichiatric help, not a purification ritual. the amount of contradictions in the religious matters is huge and just cannot be ignored. this alone should keep people far from any religion, but it seems most people still need a sweet lie to feel reassured.
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
I'd say religion isn't under as much scrutiny is because religion is unprovable and science can be disprovable, so if you're going to criticize something you're more likely to go for the one you can actually disprove. It's hard to criticize religion because religious people believe in what is set forth in a book, and so any argument relies on whether or not you take that book as valid.
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
You guys have this argument all screwed up. We all know you can't put the same level of scientific testing to religion because of one simple reason previously stated.
Quote:
We can put CERTAIN elements of bible events to scientific recreation, but that doesn't prove most current contexts, especially modern miracles. (Many of which are well documented. The Catholic church has few dubious miracles. For a religion that still has exorcisms, they do a damn good job of investigating "legit" miracles.) But again to my main point, you guys are completely wrong in this discussion. You shouldn't be thinking about testing religion on scientific standards, as it's impossible. Now, if you used philosophical standards... *wink wink* |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
#1: Can we observe him? #2: Can we observe his actions? #3: Can we observe any effects of his actions? #4: Is there any actual evidence to suggest that he exists? Going after a hypothesis is secondary to answering those questions. If something isn't even observable in any way, it does not exist in the empirical sense. Extradimensional existence that has no effect on our World is irrelevant. You'd be just as right to be arguing that Mister Mxyzptlk exists in the 5th dimension and we just can't see him. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Listen, its very easy. There is one term that brings it all together; "moot point."
Its like many have said, it will not work to hold that kind of concept to a scientific standard because it is just that, a concept. No one said, "I believe that noahs arc existed so therefore it is a scientific fact." Even in a previous question about allowing guns in schools. You can believe it, but to claim it as scientific fact does not coincide because it was not tested through those means. If you really want to know why it doesnt receive the same kind of scrutiny then do an 'experiment'. Go up to as many religion geared individuals and you can and try to 'scientifically' prove to them that God doesn't exist just to see what their reaction will be. To 'prove' my point ill go along with something that was said earlier about being able to "insert God here." You could go all day trying to prove evolution to me but you will get nowhere because of one simple bit of logic. Say, "evolution happened through mutations in genes" and ill say "God made those mutations happen", can you scientifically prove that God did not do that? The answer is no, you cannot and until you can then i will not change my opinion. Moot point. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
the "you can't prove or disprove it" argument is just a weak excuse to believe in something that makes you feel better. it has no relevance, no sense, and no reason to exist. anything i can imagine, going down this road, has the same legitimacy as a god from any religion with millions of faithful followers, then. good point.
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
Just because you elect to not follow their belief system doesn't make their belief system irellevant, nonsensical and pointless, just irellevant, nonsensical and pointless TO YOU. Quote:
I'm not actually sure why this thread got revived or why this angle on the discussion is still going on. I thought this sort of thing was put to rest back when I pointed out Quote:
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
I think it's a gross oversimplification to just make the argument that science and religion should stay out of each other's faces because they are distinct realms of thought. Yes, religion at its core is a construct, and as such it is impossible to scientifically determine the legitimacy of religion at the most fundamental level. However, this does not mean that the two things are really distinct. Religious ideals usually lead to religious assertions about the how the natural world is structured, and when this line is crossed, science definitely has the right to get involved.
Assertions pertaining to such things as the age of the universe, or the existence of intelligent design, definitely fall within the scientific method to test. And, should these things be scientifically shown to be most likely false (which they pretty much have been), then this still says a lot about the religion itself as a construct. Logically, if natural observations result from religious concepts, and those natural observations are false, then it's an easy logical jump to conclude that there's something wrong with that construct of religion in the first place. Of course, this falls far from actually proving the existence or non-existence of a God, but it does suggest that the particular treatment of such a God that a particular religious construct has used is somewhat flawed. The major problem, though, is not that science should not be allowed to test certain aspects of religion, but it is more that science is inherently flawed. Testing and repeated testing only yields statistics - we can only say that things are most likely true, but we can never really show that anything is definitely the case. After all, 99.9999999% is still not 100%. And, for this, science can never really show that a certain religion is definitely flawed, but only that a flaw most likely exists. So, yes, the existence of God or gods is definitely not really something that science can ever say anything about, but there is something to be said about what certain religions say that the existence of such a God translates to in terms of our world. And, there are plenty of intelligent scientists who use this concept to talk about certain aspects of religion. There are also a considerable number of intelligent religious people who argue for religion in the context of science. I've seen and read books that argue for religion in scientific terms, and while I personally didn't find many of the arguments satisfying, there was still an impressive amount of scientific detail. The point is, I reiterate, that at their most basic levels, science and religion are separate, but as we look past this basic level, then there is a noticeable overlap. So I think it's just being lazy (and, to a degree, politically correct, which to me is even worse than being lazy) to just nonchalantly throw this argument away as "irrelevant." |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
Ironically, this is the case with science. Many theories still hold significant weight just because they are widely accepted as true, but not proven factual. E.G. gravity. You need to disprove them completely, or at least enough so to make it seem outstandingly unlikely, to disprove them. It's not the strongest argument, but when your best argument against a point contrived on the concept of belief and opinion is "thats stupid" then you don't have much sway, do you? Quote:
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
Otherwise, you're straw manning the religious claim by misrepresenting it as "Scientific claims we can expose the flaws in" when it has never suggest that is what it is. This has nothing to do with political correctness, this has to do with apples and oranges. I'll direct you, once more, to the claim I quoted above, especially in regards to the "intelligent religious people" versus "religious people" distinction I drew. When you say that you've seen all these cases of religious people trying to use science to prove their beliefs, well yes, I've seen them too, I've read several books on christian apologetics, and looked into several "scientific" proofs for ID and so forth. The reason you find these things not very compelling is that they aren't very compelling. They tend to either try to justify after the fact, or just stretch credulity much further than the broadest extrapolation. As regards your specific examples of "the age of the universe, or the existence of intelligent design" I'd suggest that for one, most realistic proponants and opponents of ID differ primarily in their conception of whether "Things just happened" or "Things were made to happen" actually represents the proper application of Occam's Razor, rather than any more formal disagreementm and for two, the only religious people who disagree over the actual age of the universe are, in my opinion, idiots. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
While religious claims are not scientific claims, whenever you make any remark about an observable phenomenon, there is implicit scientific content in your statement. As was repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread - many religious ideologies escape the realm of testability, but this by no means means that some of the specifics of what such ideologies claim manages to do the same. Anything really that relates to concrete ideas in our natural world is subject (rightfully) to scientific scrutiny. It's not like comparing apples with oranges, it's like comparing vanilla ice cream with a chocolate/vanilla twist ice cream and remarking "hm, I don't know about the chocolate in this, but the vanilla smells a bit strange."
Of course, this falls down to whether or not you believe in science as an ideology - but then again, science is founded upon the simplest set of assumptions we can come up with, and is also founded upon observable, repeatable experiments, so Occam's Razor really doesn't favor religion or ID at all... I'm actually not quite sure what you were getting at in the last paragraph, Devonin... I think you missed a punctuation mark or something because I couldn't really understand what the structure of the sentence was (the one with Occam's Razor) <.<... and most religious supporters (Christians especially) disagree wholeheartedly with the scientific perspective on how old the Universe is (it comes with the territory), so I'm not sure where you are getting that from. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
My statement goes like this: People who support ID intelligently tend to claim that the unliklihood of the universe existing by pure chance means that a creator is the simplest explanation. People who oppose ID intelligently tend to claim that the characteristics implicit in a creator are too complex and advanced, and that random chance is the simplest explanation.
They both think they are correctly applying Occam's razor to the question of the creation of the universe. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution